State v. Shoopman
2017 Ohio 2612
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Robert T. Shoopman was indicted in Ohio for raping his step-daughter (K.K.) when she was under 13; the alleged acts occurred between July 1996 and August 1998.
- After the family moved to North Carolina, the abuse was reported there in November 2009 by K.K. (then 18); North Carolina authorities learned the abuse had occurred earlier in Ohio.
- Shoopman was prosecuted and imprisoned in North Carolina; K.K. initially did not want Ohio charges pursued, and Ohio law enforcement did not immediately prosecute.
- Shoopman was released from North Carolina prison in spring 2015; Ohio reopened the investigation and indicted him on January 15, 2016.
- Shoopman moved to dismiss for pre-indictment delay, claiming actual prejudice because the delay prevented concurrent sentencing with his North Carolina term; the trial court denied the motion, he pled no contest, and was sentenced to three years and designated a sexually oriented offender.
- On appeal, Shoopman contended the trial court erred by denying dismissal for pre-indictment delay; the appellate court affirmed, finding no actual prejudice and that the State had a justified reason for delay (victim minority, residence, and unwillingness to participate earlier).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre-indictment delay requires dismissal due to prejudice | State: No dismissal; delay justified by victim's minority, residence in NC, and unwillingness to participate earlier | Shoopman: Delay caused actual prejudice by eliminating possibility of negotiating or receiving a concurrent Ohio sentence with his NC sentence | Court held no actual prejudice shown; defendant's claim speculative and State had a justified reason for delay |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Luck, 15 Ohio St.3d 150 (1984) (framework: defendant must show actual prejudice from pre-indictment delay; if shown, State must justify delay)
- State v. Jones, 148 Ohio St.3d 167 (2016) (actual prejudice requires specific lost evidence or unavailable testimony that would bolster the defense)
- United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (1971) (pre-indictment delay analysis and the need for showing prejudice)
- United States v. White, 985 F.2d 271 (6th Cir. 1993) (loss of opportunity to serve concurrent sentences does not, by itself, constitute substantial prejudice)