State v. Smith
2016 Ohio 7893
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 1995 N.R. reported being assaulted, raped, and threatened with a knife in her Cleveland apartment; a rape kit and latent fingerprints were collected but no suspect was identified and the case went cold.
- In 2013 the cold case was reopened; the rape kit was tested at BCI and produced a CODIS match to Anthony Smith (a Michigan offender).
- Re-submission of latent prints to AFIS produced a match to Smith from a drinking glass at the scene.
- Smith was indicted in 2014 for rape, kidnapping, and aggravated burglary; he moved to dismiss the indictment for preindictment delay (19-year delay), claiming actual prejudice.
- The trial court denied the motion, finding Smith failed to show actual and substantial prejudice and, alternatively, that the State had a justified investigative reason for the delay.
- A jury convicted Smith; he appealed solely on the preindictment-delay (due process) ground, which the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 19-year preindictment delay violated due process | State: statute of limitations and delay defenses not met; delay caused by investigative developments (DNA/fingerprint matches) | Smith: 19-year delay caused actual prejudice—faded memories, missing witnesses/evidence (911, EMS report, knife), changed scene | No — Smith failed to prove actual prejudice; alternatively State offered justifiable investigative reasons for delay |
| What standard governs preindictment-delay claims | State: apply Ohio burden-shifting framework | Smith: must show prejudice from unavailable evidence/witnesses | Court applied Ohio standard: defendant must show actual prejudice; then burden shifts to State to justify delay |
| Whether lost or degraded evidence warranted dismissal | State: lost evidence speculative and not shown to affect defense | Smith: missing 911/EMS reports, unavailable witness, changed scene could be exculpatory | Court: mere possibility of lost evidence or faded memory is insufficient; defendant must show specific missing evidence would aid defense — Smith failed to do so |
| Whether State’s delay was unjustifiable or tactical | State: delay due to lack of a suspect and later new forensic matches; investigation resumed when new evidence appeared | Smith: delay was unreasonable and prejudicial | Court: delay was investigative, not tactical or negligent; newly available DNA/fingerprint evidence justified prosecution timing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (establishes limitations of due-process protection for preindictment delay)
- United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (preindictment-delay due-process analysis; government justification)
- State v. Luck, 15 Ohio St.3d 150 (Ohio standard: unjustifiable delay that results in actual prejudice violates due process)
- State v. Walls, 96 Ohio St.3d 437 (discusses balancing test for actual prejudice and reasons for delay)
- State v. Whiting, 84 Ohio St.3d 215 (burden-shifting: once defendant shows prejudice, State must justify delay)
- State v. Adams, 144 Ohio St.3d 429 (further discussion of preindictment-delay framework)