State v. Freeman

Summary

The court held that the prosecution was barred by the five-year statute of limitations because the state failed to prove that it exercised due diligence in executing the arrest warrant without unreasonable delay. After the defendant established that he was available and nonelusive during the limitation period, the state was required to present admissible evidence explaining the delays and demonstrating diligent efforts, but it relied primarily on an inadequate chronology and unsworn representations by counsel. The judgment affirming the conviction was reversed, and the case was remanded with direction to grant the motion to dismiss.