State v. Hines
2019 Ohio 5039
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- In April 2012 Marion County Children Services reported sexual-assault allegations against Herbert Hines; police searched his home and seized DVDs, a cell phone, and two laptops, which were sent to BCI and later returned after BCI reported no evidentiary items.
- The local prosecutor did not charge Hines in 2012; the seized property was returned in early 2014 and the investigation was treated as closed; Hines received the devices back and did not retain some items.
- In July 2018 Hines was indicted on multiple sex-offense counts arising from alleged conduct between 2008–2011, creating roughly a six-year preindictment delay. Two counts were later dismissed as time-barred.
- Hines moved to dismiss for preindictment delay, identifying specific missing evidence: chlamydia test results for Hines, SANE kits and colposcope photos, the seized electronic devices, recordings of interviews (officer, SANE, and children services), a polygraph report, and photos of the searched home. He argued their loss caused actual prejudice.
- The trial court held hearings, found documentation and evidence preservation weak, concluded that the absence of the chlamydia test results and the electronic devices (and the collective absence of other items) substantially prejudiced Hines, found no justification offered by the State for the six-year delay, granted dismissal, and the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Hines's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether preindictment delay violated due process by causing actual prejudice | Hines failed to prove actual, particularized prejudice from the delay | Loss of specific, material evidence (chlamydia test report; electronic devices; recordings; photos) undermines ability to challenge victims’ credibility and present a defense | Dismissal affirmed: trial court found actual prejudice from missing chlamydia results and devices and collective prejudice from other missing items |
| Allocation of burdens and justification for delay | If no actual prejudice shown, State need not justify delay | Once prejudice shown, State must produce a justifiable reason for the delay; none was offered | Court found Hines met his burden; State presented no justification, so dismissal appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mammone, 139 Ohio St.3d 467 (Ohio 2014) (discusses balance between speedy-trial guarantees and due-process protection for preindictment delay)
- State v. Jones, 148 Ohio St.3d 167 (Ohio 2016) (preindictment-delay framework and actual-prejudice requirement)
- United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1971) (Sixth Amendment does not protect pre-accusation delay; due process applies when unjustifiable preindictment delay causes actual prejudice)
- State v. Luck, 15 Ohio St.3d 150 (Ohio 1984) (delay may be unjustifiable where prosecution ceased active investigation then later prosecuted on same evidence)
- State v. Whiting, 84 Ohio St.3d 215 (Ohio 1998) (defendant’s initial burden to demonstrate actual prejudice)
- State v. Walls, 96 Ohio St.3d 437 (Ohio 2002) (analysis of actual prejudice and review deference)
- State v. Adams, 144 Ohio St.3d 429 (Ohio 2015) (clarifies that speculative harms from delay are insufficient; prejudice must be specific)