State v. Jones
2017 Ohio 176
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- In 1993 the victim (S.W.) reported Jones raped her; police took a rape kit and recorded Jones’s name and address, but the investigation was closed shortly after as officers could not locate the victim.
- No further investigative steps (photos, preservation of clothing, follow-up witness interviews) were documented; police later characterized the victim’s address as “bad.”
- The rape kit was tested in 2011–2012 under Ohio’s sexual-assault-kit initiative and produced a DNA profile matching Jones in 2013, one day before the then-applicable 20‑year statute of limitations expired.
- Jones was indicted for rape and kidnapping in August 2013; he moved to dismiss based on unconstitutional preindictment delay, citing lost witnesses (his mother, now deceased) and lost physical evidence (victim’s clothing, photos, 911 call).
- The trial court granted dismissal; the Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Eighth District’s earlier en banc decision and remanded for application of Whiting/Luck; on remand the Eighth District applied that framework and reversed the trial court, finding Jones failed to prove actual prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jones proved actual prejudice from preindictment delay | State: Delay did not cause actual prejudice; indictment followed DNA match and statute-timing | Jones: 20‑year delay caused loss of an exculpatory witness (mother) and physical evidence, impairing defense | Held: Jones failed to show actual prejudice; dismissal reversed |
| Proper legal standard for preindictment‑delay claims | State: Apply two‑part Whiting burden‑shifting and Luck actual‑prejudice test | Jones: Trial court applied dismissal given investigative failures and lost evidence/witness | Held: Court applies Whiting and Luck; defendant must prove missing evidence/testimony would undermine state’s case |
| Relevance of deceased witness (mother) to defense | State: Other witnesses may have been available and mother’s testimony likely cumulative | Jones: Mother would have testified she heard no struggle and could impeach victim’s account | Held: Mother’s absence not shown to be uniquely prejudicial; possible brother witness could be available, so cumulative risk outweighed |
| Effect of missing physical evidence (clothing, photos) | State: No evidence these items were preserved; loss reflects an incomplete investigation, not delay-caused loss | Jones: Missing items would have shown lack of struggle and bolstered defense | Held: Loss of physical evidence not proven to result from delay and thus not shown to cause actual prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Whiting, 84 Ohio St.3d 215 (1998) (establishes two‑part burden‑shifting test for preindictment delay due‑process claims)
- State v. Luck, 15 Ohio St.3d 150 (1984) (defines actual‑prejudice standard — unavailability of specific evidence/testimony that would attack state’s evidence may satisfy prejudice)
- State v. Adams, 144 Ohio St.3d 429 (2015) (death of a potential witness does not always constitute actual prejudice; proof is speculative)
- United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (1971) (discusses constitutional limits on preindictment delay and related analysis)
- State v. Jones, 35 N.E.3d 606 (8th Dist. 2015) (earlier en banc appellate decision reversed by Ohio Supreme Court and discussed here)