State v. Moore, 2017 Ohio 1307

In 2009 Dayton police arrested Patrick Moore after an undercover sting in which Moore sent nude images and used a phone to contact an officer he believed to be a 15‑year‑old; Moore pleaded guilty to importuning and disseminating matter harmful to juveniles and received community control.
The seized Blackberry and its memory card were kept in police property; department practice was to keep felony evidence several years then destroy items and recycle phones.
In early 2015 the department pulled Moore’s phone for destruction; its memory card was removed and mixed with other cards for reformatting and reuse.
A detective reviewing the pooled memory cards discovered over 500 images and videos showing minors in sexual conduct; an investigation confirmed the files depicted children.
In Sept. 2015 Moore was indicted on multiple counts of illegal use of a minor in nudity‑oriented material and pandering; Moore moved to dismiss arguing speedy‑trial and due‑process (preindictment delay) violations.
The trial court granted dismissal; the court of appeals reversed, holding the State did not violate Moore’s speedy‑trial or due‑process rights and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Moore)	Held
Whether subsequent child‑pornography indictment violated statutory speedy‑trial limits because State had constructive knowledge when phone was seized in 2009	State: Did not know images existed on card in 2009; new charges arise from different facts and so Baker applies	Moore: Police had the phone in 2009 and could have found images then; later indictment should be governed by initial speedy‑trial clock	Court: Reversed trial court — State did not know of images in 2009 and was not required to fully search phone; no speedy‑trial violation (Baker controls)
Whether preindictment delay violated due process by causing actual prejudice	State: Delay was justified and Moore cannot show actual, non‑speculative prejudice	Moore: Delay destroyed/altered evidence (phone unavailable), preventing expert analysis and chain‑of‑custody defenses	Court: Moore failed to show actual prejudice; speculative theories insufficient; no due‑process violation

State v. Kerby, 162 Ohio App.3d 353 (Ohio Ct. App.) (speedy‑trial statutory framework in Ohio)
State v. Pachay, 64 Ohio St.2d 218 (Ohio 1980) (Ohio speedy‑trial statutes implement constitutional right)
State v. Adams, 43 Ohio St.3d 67 (Ohio 1989) (when later charges arise from same facts known at original indictment, original speedy‑trial limits apply)
State v. Baker, 78 Ohio St.3d 108 (Ohio 1997) (if later charges arise from different facts and state lacked knowledge, initial speedy‑trial clock does not apply)
State v. Jones, 148 Ohio St.3d 167 (Ohio 2016) (preindictment‑delay due‑process test: delay must be unjustified and cause actual prejudice; burden‑shifting framework)
State v. Luck, 15 Ohio St.3d 150 (Ohio 1984) (preindictment delay may violate due process)
State v. Whiting, 84 Ohio St.3d 215 (Ohio 1998) (describes burden shifting once defendant shows actual prejudice)