State v. McFarland (Third Concurrence)

Summary

The concurrence agrees that the defendant's convictions for two 1987 murders should be affirmed but would analyze the prearrest-delay due process claim under a balancing test rather than a rigid two-part test. Under that proposed approach, the defendant must first show actual and substantial prejudice, after which the state must explain the delay and the court balances the prejudice against the state's investigative justification. The concurrence assumes prejudice without deciding and concludes that the legitimate investigative reasons for the thirty-two-year delay outweighed it.