Background
Scott Wilson shook several-week-old Hannah G. in 1985, causing severe brain trauma. A jury acquitted him of felonious assault but convicted him of misdemeanor assault for recklessly causing serious physical harm. Hannah remained profoundly disabled and died in 2006. An autopsy attributed her death to encephalopathy resulting from the late effects of blunt-force head trauma.
After Wilson sought to seal his assault conviction in 2022, prosecutors reviewed the file, reopened the investigation, and obtained an indictment for involuntary manslaughter approximately 16 years after Hannah’s death. Wilson moved to dismiss, arguing that the delay prejudiced his defense because witnesses had died and records from the 1985 case and Hannah’s later care were unavailable. The trial court denied the motion, and Wilson pleaded no contest, received a two-year prison sentence, and unsuccessfully appealed to the Twelfth District Court of Appeals.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed. It held that a defendant asserting a due-process challenge to preindictment delay bears the burden of proving both that the delay caused actual prejudice to the defense and that the State intentionally delayed prosecution to gain a tactical advantage. Actual prejudice requires a concrete showing that missing evidence would have been favorable, material, and noncumulative; speculation about how lost evidence might have helped is insufficient.
The court overruled State v. Luck and related Ohio decisions to the extent they used a burden-shifting framework under which proof of actual prejudice required the State to justify its delay. It concluded that Wilson’s claims about missing trial, medical, protective-services, and nursing-home records were conclusory or speculative. The unavailable neuropathologist’s report supported the State’s causation theory, and Wilson failed to show that the neuropathologist would have supplied favorable, material information unavailable from the surviving deputy coroner or other sources.
Because Wilson did not establish actual prejudice, the court did not decide whether the State intentionally delayed the indictment for a tactical advantage. It held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wilson’s motion to dismiss.
Key Takeaways
- An Ohio defendant challenging preindictment delay on federal due-process grounds must prove both actual prejudice and intentional delay designed to give the State a tactical advantage.
- Missing evidence establishes actual prejudice only when the defendant concretely shows that it would have been favorable, material, and noncumulative.
- The court overruled State v. Luck and its progeny insofar as they permitted speculative prejudice or shifted to the State the burden of justifying the delay.
Why It Matters
The decision substantially narrows preindictment-delay challenges in Ohio by replacing the State-justification framework with a demanding defendant-bears-all-burdens test. Defendants must now identify specific lost evidence, demonstrate how it would materially aid the defense, and prove that prosecutors delayed for tactical advantage.
The ruling also limits dismissal based on negligent or unexplained investigative delay alone. Even a lengthy delay within the applicable limitations period will not violate federal due process without concrete prejudice and proof of an improper tactical purpose.