State v. Smith, 2014 Ohio 3034

In June 2000, L.G. reported a sexual assault; a rape kit and medical records were collected and preserved and later yielded DNA consistent with Christopher Smith.
Initial CPD investigation in 2000 stalled because L.G. said she did not wish to prosecute; officers made follow-up contacts that went unanswered.
CODIS matched Smith to the 2000 evidence in 2004 and again in 2012; CPD re-contacted L.G. in December 2012 and she agreed to proceed.
Smith was indicted in February 2013 for rape, gross sexual imposition, and two kidnapping counts (with sexual-motivation and sexually violent predator specifications); some counts/specifications were later dismissed.
At trial L.G. testified about nonconsensual intercourse by Smith and identified him in a 2012 photo lineup; medical evidence showed semen consistent with Smith but no visible physical trauma.
The trial court denied Smith’s preindictment-delay dismissal motion; a jury convicted him of rape and gross sexual imposition; he was sentenced to 10 years (to run consecutively to another term for a total of 17 years).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Preindictment delay (due process)	State: delay did not cause actual, substantial prejudice to Smith; preserved physical evidence and records existed.	Smith: delay (2000–2013) deprived him of witnesses/evidence (responding officers, two unidentified males, victim’s mother) that would have exculpated him.	Court: Denied relief — Smith failed to show particularized, non‑speculative prejudice; jury saw inconsistencies and records were preserved.
Manifest weight of the evidence	State: victim’s credible testimony and DNA linking Smith to semen support convictions.	Smith: victim’s credibility undermined by delayed cooperation, inconsistencies (failure to mention two other men), and lack of physical injury.	Court: Affirmed convictions — credibility and inconsistencies were for the jury; evidence did not demonstrate a miscarriage of justice.

United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1971) (preindictment delay due-process framework)
United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (U.S. 1977) (delay justified by legitimate reasons may not violate due process)
State v. Luck, 15 Ohio St.3d 150 (Ohio 1984) (preindictment delay violates due process only if it causes actual prejudice)
State v. Walls, 96 Ohio St.3d 437 (Ohio 2002) (two‑part preindictment‑delay analysis and balancing test)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (manifest‑weight standard and role of appellate court as "thirteenth juror")