State v. Malone, 2011 Ohio 2445

Ms. Utsey-Henderson and Malone dated and lived together until 2001; relationship volatile with frequent fights.
Utsey-Henderson was murdered in June 2001; body found in her bedroom with extensive injuries.
Malone was interviewed in 2001; no charges filed at that time.
Case reopened in 2004; new tests and information led to Malone’s 2006 indictment for aggravated murder, murder, aggravated burglary, and felonious assault.
Malone argues preindictment delay violated due process; trial court rejected other claims including ineffective assistance, manifest weight, and other acts evidence.
Appellate court affirmed, finding no actual prejudice from delay, no ineffective assistance, no manifest weight issue, and no 404(B) other acts evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Preindictment delay due process prejudice	Malone	Malone	Delay produced no actual prejudice
Ineffective assistance for failing to file suppression	Malone	Malone	No reasonable probability of acquittal without the recordings
Manifest weight of the evidence	Malone	Malone	Convictions not against the manifest weight; supported by evidence
Admission of other acts evidence under Rule 404(B)	Malone	Malone	No admissible other-acts evidence; rules not violated

State v. Luck, 15 Ohio St.3d 150 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1984) (preindictment delay due process requires actual prejudice show)
State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2000) (ineffective assistance standard, prejudice requires acquittal probability)
Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1991) (circumstantial evidence probative value equal to direct evidence)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1984) (ineffective assistance standard requiring prejudice)
State v. Brown, 115 Ohio St.3d 55 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2007) (defendant must show basis to suppress evidence)
State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (Ohio App.3d, 1986) (manifest weight/appellate review framework)