State v. McKinley, 2020 Ohio 3664

In 2018 McKinley was indicted for rape (alleged Jan. 29, 1999); indictment was within the (retroactive) 25‑year statute of limitations.
Victim reported the assault in 1999 and a rape kit was collected that day; initial investigation went cold after detectives could not locate the victim.
The rape kit was submitted for DNA testing in 2012; a CODIS hit connected McKinley to the male DNA.
Investigators located the victim in 2017; she identified McKinley in a photo array. McKinley was interviewed in 2018–2019, initially denied recognizing the victim, signed a photo “no,” but after reviewing discovery recalled a separate consensual encounter with a woman in a fur coat.
McKinley moved to dismiss for unconstitutional preindictment delay, claiming lost surveillance and unavailable witnesses would have supported a consent defense; the trial court granted the motion, finding actual prejudice and police negligence.
The State appealed; the appellate court reversed, holding McKinley failed to prove actual prejudice and that the State had a justifiable reason to delay reopening the cold case after the 2012 CODIS hit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (McKinley)	Held
Whether defendant proved "actual prejudice" from preindictment delay	State: defendant must show concrete, non‑speculative lost evidence/testimony that would materially weaken State's case; he did not.	McKinley: lost bar surveillance and several witnesses (bar staff, aunt, bedridden neighbor, James Tatum) would have supported a consent/innocence theory.	Held: McKinley failed to show competent, credible evidence that missing items/witnesses would link his claimed fur‑coat encounter to the victim; no actual prejudice.
Whether the delay was unjustified (state negligence or tactical advantage)	State: delay resulted from a cold case until a CODIS hit; State acted reasonably in reactivating investigation after DNA match.	McKinley: police were negligent in 1999 for ceasing the investigation and in 2012 for not prosecuting after the CODIS hit.	Held: appellate court would have found the State’s reason for delay justifiable; trial court erred in finding police negligence.
Whether the trial court erred procedurally in allowing additional prejudice claims not in the motion	State: trial court allowed prejudice theories not specifically pled, prejudicing State and victim.	McKinley: (argued prejudice claims justified by hearing testimony).	Held: This assignment was rendered moot by reversal on actual‑prejudice and unjustified‑delay grounds.

State v. Luck, 15 Ohio St.3d 150 (establishes burden‑shifting: defendant shows actual prejudice, then State must justify delay)
United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (preindictment delay can violate due process even within statute of limitations)
United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (delay unjustified when state ceases active investigation then later prosecutes on same evidence)
State v. Walls, 96 Ohio St.3d 437 (courts balance prejudice against reasons for delay; prejudice assessed as of indictment)
State v. Jones, 148 Ohio St.3d 167 (actual‑prejudice requires case‑by‑case showing that missing evidence/testimony would materially bolster defense)
State v. Adams, 144 Ohio St.3d 429 (speculative possibilities of faded memory or lost evidence are insufficient to show actual prejudice)