State v. Tyler, 2016 Ohio 8245

Randy Tyler was indicted in 2015 for two counts of first-degree rape and one count of third-degree sexual battery based on acts alleged to have occurred between 1997 and 2002 involving a minor.
The victim first reported the offenses in 2007, recorded a conversation with Tyler, then relocated; detectives lost contact until the victim returned to Ohio in 2015 and reopened the investigation.
Tyler moved to dismiss for preindictment delay, arguing actual prejudice: a lost exculpatory recorded call, unavailable witnesses (including his ill mother), and missing military records.
The trial court held a hearing and denied the motion to dismiss, finding no demonstrated prejudice from the delay.
Following a jury trial in February 2016, Tyler was convicted on all counts and sentenced to an aggregate 13-year prison term.
On appeal Tyler’s sole assignment argued ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to press the prejudicial effect of the lost recording in the preindictment-delay motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether preindictment delay caused actual prejudice (via loss of an allegedly exculpatory recording), and counsel was ineffective for not proving that prejudice	State: defendant must show specific, actual prejudice; if evidence would have been inadmissible or the defendant fails to show exculpatory value, no due-process violation	Tyler: counsel was ineffective for not establishing that the lost recorded statement was exculpatory and that its loss prejudiced his defense	Court: Counsel was not ineffective because the lost recording would have been inadmissible hearsay if offered by Tyler; defendant failed to show specific, admissible exculpatory evidence and therefore no prejudice from delay

State v. Luck, 15 Ohio St.3d 150 (discusses preindictment delay and balancing prejudice against state justification)
United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (establishes federal due-process framework for preindictment delay)
United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (preindictment delay analysis and state interest considerations)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Trimble, 122 Ohio St.3d 297 (Ohio application of Strickland)
State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (presumption of competence for licensed attorneys)
State v. Walls, 96 Ohio St.3d 437 (balancing-length-of-delay and prejudice in preindictment delay cases)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (prejudice requirement in ineffective-assistance analysis)