State v. Dixon, 2014 Ohio 2185

Steven D. Dixon was indicted on April 19, 2013 for rape and kidnapping based on conduct alleged to have occurred April 20, 1993 (indictment filed one day before the 20-year statute of limitations expired).
After the 1993 report, the victim signed a "no prosecution" form, but parole authorities held hearings in 1993 where the victim and Dixon both testified; Dixon admitted sexual intercourse but claimed it was consensual; parole was revoked and Dixon served two additional years.
No criminal prosecution occurred in 1993; in April 2013 a CODIS DNA hit linked a submitted rape kit to Dixon, prompting the 2013 indictment.
Dixon moved to dismiss the indictment for prejudicial preindictment delay; the trial court granted the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing, finding actual and substantial prejudice and no justifiable reason for delay.
The State appealed; the appellate court concluded the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing without an evidentiary hearing and reversed and remanded for such a hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing and making factual findings before dismissing for preindictment delay	State: trial court should have required evidence and findings; dismissal without hearing was improper	Dixon: trial court properly relied on the motion and existing facts to find prejudice and dismiss	Court: trial court abused its discretion by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing and make a record; reversed and remanded for hearing
Whether Dixon established actual and substantial prejudice from the nearly 20-year delay so as to warrant dismissal	State: Dixon did not present specific, non-speculative proof of prejudice or exculpatory value of missing evidence	Dixon: delay caused faded memory, unavailable witnesses, and harmed ability to defend; DNA added nothing new	Court: prejudice cannot be presumed from delay; defendant must present specific evidence of substantial prejudice — issue requires evidentiary development (second assignment moot pending hearing)

Luck v. State, 15 Ohio St.3d 150 (Ohio 1984) (preindictment delay that causes actual prejudice can violate due process)
United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (U.S. 1977) (statute of limitations is primary protection against stale charges)
State v. Walls, 96 Ohio St.3d 437 (Ohio 2002) (defendant must prove specific actual prejudice from delay; then state must justify delay)
United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1971) (prejudice inquiry examines evidence as it exists when the indictment is filed)