The Ohio Supreme Court ruled on October 14, 2026, that Scott Wilson did not prove his claim of due-process violation due to preindictment delay in his involuntary manslaughter case. The court's decision affects how future preindictment delay claims will be evaluated in Ohio.
Wilson's case stemmed from the death of a victim, Hannah G., who suffered severe brain trauma in 1985 when she was just weeks old. Wilson was initially indicted for felonious assault but was later convicted of misdemeanor assault. After Hannah died in 2006, the state did not file new charges against Wilson until 2022, when he sought to seal his conviction records. This prompted the state to re-investigate her death.
The state indicted Wilson on December 1, 2022, for involuntary manslaughter and reckless homicide. Wilson filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the delay violated his due-process rights because key evidence and witnesses were no longer available. The trial court denied his motion, and Wilson later pleaded no contest to the manslaughter charge, receiving a two-year prison sentence.
Wilson appealed the trial court's decision to the Twelfth District Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower court's ruling. The Twelfth District applied a burden-shifting framework that required Wilson to show actual prejudice from the delay. The court found that he failed to do so, leading to Wilson's appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court.
In its ruling, the Ohio Supreme Court, led by Justice Deters, overruled a previous case, State v. Luck, which had allowed for less stringent standards in proving actual prejudice. The court emphasized that a defendant must demonstrate both actual prejudice and that the delay was an intentional tactic by the state to gain an advantage.
The court ruled, "A defendant challenging preindictment delay on due-process grounds has the burden to establish both (1) that he was actually prejudiced by the delay and (2) that the delay was an intentional device to gain a tactical advantage for the State."
Wilson's claims were deemed speculative, as he could not show that the missing evidence would have been favorable to his defense. The court stated that establishing actual prejudice requires showing that missing evidence would be favorable, material, and noncumulative.
This ruling sets a clear precedent for future cases regarding preindictment delay in Ohio. It reinforces the burden on defendants to prove their claims of due-process violations and clarifies the standards for evaluating such claims.
The ruling may impact similar cases in Ohio, as defendants will now need to meet stricter requirements to challenge preindictment delays. This decision aligns Ohio's standards with those established by the United States Supreme Court.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Wilson will appeal this decision further. The court's ruling stands as a significant interpretation of preindictment delay and due-process rights in Ohio.