State v. New, 2013 Ohio 3193

In 1976 Dorothy Spencer was found shot in her home and died; no firearm was recovered but a revolver box and matching bullets were found; Bobbie Lee New was the primary suspect given his prior abusive relationship with Spencer and possession of a gun loaned to him in 1975.
A 1976 grand jury returned a no bill. Telephone traces later showed the anonymous 1976 911-type call originated from the home of Zula and Ezra Strader; both testified before the grand jury and denied relevant facts; both later died.
In 2010 Perry Strader (son of Ezra and Zula) came forward saying he heard his parents and New at the Strader home the night of the shooting and that New admitted beating and shooting Spencer; Perry said he had been raised to protect family and would not have spoken in 1976.
New was indicted for murder in 2011. He moved to dismiss on grounds of pre‑indictment delay; the trial court granted the motion after finding actual prejudice from the 35‑year delay and that the State had not justified the delay.
The State appealed; the court of appeals reviewed de novo whether the State justified the long delay after defendant proved actual prejudice and reversed the trial court, concluding the State had legitimate justification because Perry’s testimony and other information were not known to investigators until 2010.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State justified the 35‑year pre‑indictment delay	State: delay justified because key new evidence (Perry’s testimony) only surfaced in 2010	New: delay unjustified; State could have prosecuted earlier with available 1976 evidence	Reversed trial court: State justified delay because Perry’s testimony was unavailable to investigators in 1976
Whether New proved actual prejudice from the delay (triggering State’s burden to justify delay)	State disputed but offered no developed argument against trial court’s finding	New: 35‑year lapse caused substantial prejudice because key exculpatory witnesses (the Straders) are now deceased	Court accepted trial court’s finding of actual prejudice (State did not meaningfully contest) but still found State met its justificatory burden
Whether the trial court applied correct legal standard in granting dismissal	State: applied Luck two‑prong test properly	New: trial court erred in weighing evidence and concluding prosecution could have succeeded in 1976	Moot — appellate court reversed on justification ground and declined to reach this assignment

United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (1971) (statute of limitations does not alone protect against prejudicial pre‑indictment delay)
United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116 (1966) (discussing limitations and stale‑evidence concerns)
State v. Luck, 15 Ohio St.3d 150 (1984) (establishing two‑prong test: defendant must show actual prejudice; then state must justify delay)
State v. Whiting, 84 Ohio St.3d 215 (1998) (reaffirming Luck two‑prong pre‑indictment delay framework)