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, the state bore the burden of presenting admissible evidence explaining the delays, and counsel's unsworn representations and an unexplained chronology were insufficient. The court reversed and directed dismissal of the robbery charge.