State v. Craig, 2023 Ohio 1003

In 1998 D.A. reported a rape; Jonathan Craig was indicted in June 2021 on three first-degree rape counts alleging forcible sexual contact on or about November 19, 1998 — a >22-year preindictment delay.
A sexual-assault kit collected in 1998 sat untested in the sheriff’s property room until 2021; DNA testing then identified Craig.
Craig moved to dismiss the indictment for preindictment delay, asserting due-process violation: he claimed actual prejudice because three potential defense witnesses (Knox, Colvin, Madden) died during the delay and physical evidence (a lighter, currency, photos) was destroyed or is missing.
At an evidentiary hearing Craig testified he lacked memory of the incident but said he used and sold crack at an apartment where women from the nearby “Candy Store” sometimes traded sex for drugs; the deceased witnesses allegedly would have corroborated that venue practice.
The trial court found Craig proved actual prejudice and the state offered no justification for the delay, granted dismissal; the State appealed.
The appellate court reversed, holding Craig failed to prove actual prejudice from the lost physical evidence or the unavailable witnesses because the proposed testimony was too attenuated (would require impermissible stacking of inferences).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Craig)	Held
Whether preindictment delay violated due process and warranted dismissal	Trial court erred; Craig failed to prove actual prejudice from the delay	Delay caused actual prejudice: lost witnesses and destroyed/missing evidence undermined his consent defense; state offered no justification	Reversed trial court; dismissal vacated — Craig did not demonstrate actual, non-speculative prejudice
Whether loss/destruction of physical evidence and death of witnesses produced specific exculpatory prejudice	Lost/destroyed items and unavailable witnesses were not shown to have exculpatory value sufficient to prejudice trial	Physical items and deceased witnesses would have supported defense that sex was consensual/traded for drugs	Physical evidence loss not shown to minimize state’s case; deceased witnesses’ testimony too remote (would require stacking inferences) to establish actual prejudice

United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (1971) (preindictment delay and due-process framework)
State v. Jones, 148 Ohio St.3d 167 (2016) (burden-shifting; defendant must prove actual prejudice before state must justify delay)
State v. Walls, 96 Ohio St.3d 437 (2002) (evaluate prejudice based on evidence as it exists when indictment filed)
State v. Luck, 15 Ohio St.3d 150 (1984) (due process may require dismissal despite timely indictment under statute of limitations)
State v. Adams, 144 Ohio St.3d 429 (2015) (death of witness can constitute actual prejudice if exculpatory evidence is identified and unobtainable)
State v. Cowans, 87 Ohio St.3d 68 (1999) (prohibits drawing an inference solely from another inference; forbids stacking inferences)
Hurt v. Charles J. Rogers Transp. Co., 164 Ohio St. 329 (1956) (articulates limits on inferential stacking)