State v. Jackson
2015 Ohio 4274
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- In 1996 Walter Jackson was arrested after a June rape (victim M.C.) but released when the victim would not cooperate; a July 1996 rape (victim M.P.) likewise went unprosecuted at the time. DNA from preserved rape-kit swabs was tested in 2013–2014 and matched Jackson, leading to a single 2014 indictment charging both rapes.
- Jackson moved to dismiss based on preindictment delay (nearly 18 years), claiming actual prejudice from lost/ destroyed evidence and witnesses; the trial court denied the motion.
- He sought severance of the two rape counts; the court denied severance and tried both counts together.
- Jackson filed motions in limine to admit victim M.C.’s arrest records for prostitution and to suppress in-court identifications; the court excluded the arrest records and denied suppression.
- At trial DNA tied Jackson to both victims; he conceded sexual contact but asserted consent. He was convicted on both rape counts and received consecutive 10-year terms (20 years total). Sentence classified him as a sexual predator. Court of Appeals affirmed convictions but remanded for nunc pro tunc sentencing findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preindictment delay (Due Process) | State: delay justified by new DNA testing; prosecution not impermissibly tactical | Jackson: 18-year delay caused specific prejudice (lost medical records, clothing, boat, detective; faded memories) | Denied relief — defendant failed to show specific, non-speculative actual prejudice; no abuse of discretion in refusing dismissal |
| Joinder / Severance of counts | State: offenses similar; evidence could be other‑acts or, at minimum, trials would be simple and distinct | Jackson: joinder risks spillover prejudice and verdicts based on aggregated evidence | Severance denied — even assuming prejudice, evidence was simple and distinct so no abuse of discretion |
| Admission of M.C.’s prostitution/arrest records (Rape Shield) | State: records inadmissible under R.C. 2907.02(D); not probative of consent and prejudicial | Jackson: records show prostitution habit and motive to consent (or impeachment) | Exclusion affirmed — records showed arrests but few/no convictions; not admissible impeachment nor sufficiently probative of consent |
| In-court identifications and other trial errors (including witness reference to defendant’s incarceration) | State: any identification error harmless given DNA; curative instructions sufficient for remarks about incarceration | Jackson: identifications and witness comment were prejudicial | Harmless error / cured — DNA evidence made identity issues moot; court’s curative instruction and context rendered the remark nonprejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (statute of limitations primary protection against stale charges)
- United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (due process claim for preindictment delay requires prejudice and unjustifiable delay)
- United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180 (preindictment delay standard)
- State v. Whiting, 84 Ohio St.3d 215 (state must offer justifiable reason for delay)
- State v. Darmond, 135 Ohio St.3d 343 (abuse-of-discretion review for preindictment-dismissal denial)
- State v. Parson, 6 Ohio St.3d 442 (standard of review for dismissal motions)
- Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (severance standard; risk of jury confusion/spillover)
- State v. Coley, 93 Ohio St.3d 253 (if joined offenses admissible as other acts, joinder not prejudicial)
- State v. Schaim, 65 Ohio St.3d 51 (simple and direct evidence can cure joinder prejudice)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (sentencing — findings requirement can be discerned from record; nunc pro tunc fixes)
- State v. Gardner, 59 Ohio St.2d 14 (balancing defendant’s right to present defense with rape-shield protections)
- State v. Williams, 21 Ohio St.3d 33 (limited exception to rape‑shield when victim’s testimony opens specific topic and exclusion infringes constitutional rights)