State v. Crymes
2017 Ohio 2655
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In January 1995, 13-year-old C. reported sexual intercourse with 17-year-old Hakim Crymes; police interviewed both and Crymes gave a written statement admitting intercourse but asserting consent and that C. called him twice earlier that morning.
- Police documented the matter and noted reports should be sent to juvenile court; no prosecution or further action occurred for 20 years.
- In 2014 the 1995 rape kit was DNA-tested and matched Crymes; the state filed charges on Jan 14, 2015 (the day before the 20-year statute of limitations would have run).
- Crymes moved to dismiss for unconstitutional preindictment delay, arguing loss of exculpatory/verifying evidence — specifically phone records from 1995 confirming two calls from C. — caused actual prejudice.
- Trial court found Crymes suffered actual prejudice and the state had no justification for the 20-year delay; it dismissed the indictment. The State appealed.
- The Eighth District affirmed, applying the Ohio Supreme Court’s two-part burden-shifting test for preindictment delay (defendant shows actual prejudice; state must justify delay).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether preindictment delay violated due process | State: delay did not prejudice Crymes; DNA match justified prosecution | Crymes: 20-year delay caused actual prejudice because phone records verifying his account are lost | Affirmed dismissal — actual prejudice shown and delay unjustified |
| Whether lost evidence (phone records) constituted actual prejudice | State: mere possibility of faded memories/unavailable evidence insufficient | Crymes: specific lost phone records would corroborate his account and impeach accuser; loss is irreparable | Held actual prejudice exists when lost evidence relevant to defense would minimize state’s case; records were critical and now unavailable |
| Application of burden-shifting test (two-part test) | State: trial court erred in dismissing | Crymes: trial court properly applied two-part test (showed prejudice; state had no justification) | Court applied Jones II framework and found defendant met burden; state offered no justifiable reason for 20-year delay |
| Whether DNA match cures prejudice from delay | State: DNA match strengthens case and supports prosecution | Crymes: DNA only shows intercourse occurred; consent remains contested and is a credibility issue dependent on lost evidence | Court: DNA added nothing to resolve consent; case is he-said-she-said and lost records were central to defense, so prejudice remains |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) (due process protects against unjustified preindictment delay that causes actual prejudice)
- State v. Luck, 15 Ohio St.3d 150 (1984) (unavailable witnesses/evidence can constitute actual prejudice even if exact testimony is not provable)
- State v. Whiting, 84 Ohio St.3d 215 (1998) (articulating burden-shifting two-part test for preindictment delay)
- State v. Walls, 96 Ohio St.3d 437 (2002) (courts should evaluate relevance of lost evidence and its effect on the defense)
- State v. Jones, 148 Ohio St.3d 167 (2016) (Jones II) (reaffirmed two-part test and clarified analysis of actual prejudice)