State v. Jones (Slip Opinion)
148 Ohio St. 3d 167
Ohio2016Background
- In September 1993 S.W. reported that Demetrius Jones raped and kidnapped her; a rape kit was taken and she identified Jones and gave his address.
- Police made cursory attempts to contact S.W., closed the investigation within a week, and took no apparent further investigative steps; Jones was not pursued at that time.
- As part of Ohio’s sexual-assault-kit testing initiative, the rape kit was DNA-tested in 2011–2013; BCI identified a DNA match to Jones in June 2013.
- The Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted Jones on August 30, 2013—one day before the 20-year statute of limitations expired.
- Jones moved to dismiss for unconstitutional preindictment delay, citing loss of evidence and the death (in 2011) of his mother, whom the victim had said was present; the trial court granted dismissal.
- The Eighth District affirmed using a due-process/fundamental-justice standard; the Ohio Supreme Court accepted review and reversed, finding the appeals court used an incorrect standard and remanding for application of the established two-step burden-shifting test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether preindictment delay violated due process | State: two-step test requires defendant first show actual prejudice before state must justify delay | Jones: delay was unjustified and caused actual prejudice (lost witness, lost evidence) | Court: defendant must prove actual prejudice under established test; appeals court erred by assessing state’s reason for delay before prejudice |
| Proper standard for proving actual prejudice | State: defendant must show concrete, non-speculative prejudice | Jones: loss of ‘critical information’ or unavailable testimony that would undermine state evidence suffices even if specifics unknown | Court: actual prejudice is case-specific; proven unavailability of evidence or testimony that would attack weight/credibility can satisfy prejudice; speculation alone will not |
| Role of police conduct in prejudice analysis | State: reasons for delay (police inaction) are irrelevant to whether defendant met burden of showing prejudice | Jones: police closed investigation quickly and failed to preserve evidence, supporting prejudice finding | Held: Court admonished appeals court for focusing on police action before defendant established actual prejudice; reasons for delay are considered only after prejudice shown |
| Burden-shifting framework application | State: once defendant shows prejudice, burden shifts to state to justify delay | Jones: urged court to apply a broader due-process/fundamental-justice inquiry | Held: Court reaffirmed Whiting/Adams burden-shifting approach and directed appeals court to reapply it consistent with Luck’s actual-prejudice analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Marion v. United States, 404 U.S. 307 (establishes limitations of Sixth Amendment pre-accusation protection and role of statutes of limitations)
- Lovasco v. United States, 431 U.S. 783 (preindictment delay requires due-process showing of unjustifiable delay causing actual prejudice)
- State v. Luck, 15 Ohio St.3d 150 (Ohio standard: unjustifiable preindictment delay violates due process when it causes actual prejudice; unavailability of specific evidence/testimony that would undercut state’s case can suffice)
- State v. Whiting, 84 Ohio St.3d 215 (adopts two-step, burden-shifting framework: defendant must first show actual prejudice; then state must justify delay)
- State v. Walls, 96 Ohio St.3d 437 (actual-prejudice inquiry is case-specific; speculative claims ordinarily fail)
- State v. Adams, 144 Ohio St.3d 429 (reiterates burden-shifting and confirms defendant must establish prejudice before court evaluates reasons for delay)