State v. Walker, 2018 Ohio 3669

In April 2017 Walker was indicted for rape and kidnapping based on an alleged October 4, 1997 incident; indictment followed a 20-year preindictment delay after DNA matched Walker in 2014.
Victim S.T. reported she was driven to Walker’s home, forced into the living room, assaulted, and vaginally raped; police found torn bra on the couch and Walker admitted having sex but claimed it was consensual.
After the 1997 investigation Walker was arrested and later released without charges; the case was closed when the victim declined further statements.
In 2014 BCI notified police that DNA from the rape kit matched Walker; the case was reopened, S.T. cooperated, and Walker was indicted.
Walker moved to dismiss the indictment with prejudice, arguing the nearly 20-year delay caused actual prejudice by making key witnesses unavailable (the investigating detective McHugh, roommate C.H., and grandfather Arthur).
The trial court granted the dismissal; the state appealed, arguing Walker failed to prove actual prejudice caused by the delay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Walker)	Held
Whether preindictment delay violated due process and required dismissal	State: Walker failed to show actual prejudice from the delay; therefore dismissal was improper	Walker: Nearly 20-year delay deprived him of witnesses/evidence (detective McHugh, roommate C.H., grandfather Arthur), prejudicing his defense	Reversed: Walker did not meet burden to prove actual prejudice; dismissal was erroneous

U.S. v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (1971) (statute of limitations is primary protection; due process provides supplemental protection for prejudicial delay)
U.S. v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) (preindictment delay implicates due process only when unjustified and actually prejudicial)
State v. Jones, 148 Ohio St.3d 167 (2016) (Ohio burden-shifting framework: defendant must first show actual prejudice; then state must justify delay)
State v. Whiting, 84 Ohio St.3d 215 (1998) (discussing allocation of burdens when preindictment delay alleged)
State v. Adams, 144 Ohio St.3d 429 (2015) (courts must consider prejudice as of the time of indictment and scrutinize claimed lost evidence)
State v. Walls, 96 Ohio St.3d 437 (2002) (prejudice measured by evidence existing at indictment and effect on trial defense)
State v. Richardson, 70 N.E.3d 1175 (2016) (defendant must show a tangible connection between missing evidence/unavailable witness and a viable defense)
State v. Luck, 15 Ohio St.3d 150 (1984) (unavailable testimony can show prejudice if it would attack credibility/weight of state’s evidence)