State v. Hunter
2017 Ohio 4180
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- In April 1997 a 13-year-old victim reported being forced into an abandoned house, threatened with a gun, and raped; police took a statement and collected a rape kit but did not pursue charges because the victim feared retaliation at school.
- In February 2014 the rape kit was processed; in November 2015 BCI matched semen on the victim’s clothing to Isaac Hunter, who had been 16 at the time of the incident.
- Hunter was indicted in March 2016 on rape and kidnapping charges nearly 19 years after the alleged offense.
- Hunter moved to dismiss the indictment for preindictment delay, claiming actual prejudice from faded memories and unavailable witnesses; the trial court granted the motion.
- The State appealed, arguing Hunter failed to show actual prejudice from the delay; the appellate court reversed and remanded for the trial court to apply Ohio Supreme Court precedent (Jones) and the proper burden-shifting standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether preindictment delay violated due process | State: Hunter failed to prove actual prejudice from the delay | Hunter: Delay (~19 years) caused faded memories and loss of witnesses, impairing defense | Reversed trial court; remanded for application of Jones burden-shifting and actual-prejudice analysis |
| Whether defendant’s own faded memory or juvenile status establishes prejudice | State: General memory loss and former juvenile status do not show actual prejudice | Hunter: His memory faded and being prosecuted as adult changes defenses | Court: General memory loss and change from juvenile to adult do not, by themselves, prove actual prejudice |
| Adequacy of showing missing witnesses/evidence | State: Insufficient konkreteness tying missing witnesses to weakening state’s case | Hunter: Missing witnesses (two males, a female friend) would have provided exculpatory or impeaching testimony | Court: Defendant must show a tangible connection between missing evidence/witnesses and defense; trial court must reevaluate under Jones standard |
| Burden allocation after showing prejudice | State: If prejudice shown, State must justify delay | Hunter: Once prejudice shown, State must produce justification | Court: Applied Ohio Supreme Court rule — once defendant presents actual prejudice, burden shifts to State to justify delay; remand to apply this framework |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (1971) (statute of limitations is primary protection; due process claim limited)
- U.S. v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) (Due Process Clause provides limited protection against preindictment delay)
- State v. Luck, 15 Ohio St.3d 150 (1984) (unjustified preindictment delay violating due process when it causes actual prejudice)
- State v. Walls, 96 Ohio St.3d 437 (2002) (consider evidence as it exists at indictment and prejudice the defendant will suffer at trial)
- State v. Adams, 144 Ohio St.3d 429 (2015) (failure to show prejudice obviates need to analyze reason for delay)
- State v. Jones, 148 Ohio St.3d 167 (2016) (establishes burden-shifting framework and defines actual-prejudice standard for preindictment delay)