State v. Young
2017 Ohio 7162
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- In April 1993, 13-year-old K.A. was sexually assaulted in her home; she identified the assailant only by the name “Randy.”
- The rape kit was untested until it was submitted to the BCI in 2011; a DNA profile match across kits was developed in 2012.
- A John Doe (DNA-profile-based) indictment was filed April 9, 2013, before the 20-year statute of limitations expired.
- George Randy Young was identified by a CODIS hit in June 2013; a confirmatory buccal swab and lab report in Sept. 2013 matched Young to the DNA evidence.
- The state amended the John Doe indictment to name Young on Jan. 31, 2014; Young was tried in April 2016 and convicted of rape and kidnapping.
- Young appealed, raising preindictment delay, statute-of-limitations, indictment amendment/John Doe use, and speedy-trial claims; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preindictment delay (due process) | State: Delay was justified by evidence development; no actual prejudice shown | Young: Nearly 20-year delay caused actual prejudice (lost alibi witnesses, faded memories) | Denied — defendant failed to show nonspeculative, actual prejudice; delay justified by investigation and DNA development |
| Statute of limitations — six vs. twenty years; retroactivity | State: 1999 amendment lengthening rape SOL to 20 years applies retroactively where six-year period had not expired | Young: Six-year SOL should apply or retroactive 20-year application is absurd | Denied — 20-year SOL applies because six-year period had not expired by March 9, 1999 |
| Tolling by John Doe-DNA indictment / reasonable diligence | State: John Doe indictment was proper and tolled SOL because investigators exercised reasonable diligence before identifying suspect | Young: State failed to exercise reasonable diligence; was a known suspect; amendment tactical | Denied — law enforcement used reasonable diligence; John Doe indictment appropriate; Young was not a known suspect at indictment time |
| Speedy trial (post-indictment) | State: Time between amended indictment and arraignment/ custody tolled or did not trigger speedy-trial violation | Young: Delay from Apr 9, 2013 to Jan 1, 2014 violated speedy-trial rights | Denied — speedy-trial time began when Young was in custody/served after amendment; no statutory violation shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Sizemore v. Smith, 6 Ohio St.3d 330 (Ohio 1983) (defines "reasonable diligence" standard)
- Lasure v. State, 19 Ohio St. 43 (Ohio 1869) (an indictment accuses a person, not a name; John Doe indictments permissible)
- Lovasco v. United States, 431 U.S. 783 (U.S. 1977) (prosecutors not required to file charges as soon as probable cause exists; state interests may justify delay)
- United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1971) (statute of limitations is primary protection against stale charges; preindictment delay due-process framework)
- State v. Walls, 96 Ohio St.3d 437 (Ohio 2002) (actual prejudice inquiry is fact-specific; courts must weigh prejudice against state's reason for delay)