What is the test for a motion to dismiss for prejudicial prearrest delay?

"We review for abuse of discretion a trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss for prejudicial prearrest delay . . . and defer to any underlying factual findings if substantial evidence supports them." (People v. Cowan (2010) 50 Cal.4th 401, 431.) Whether a delay is prejudicial is a factual question that we review for substantial evidence. (People v. Alexander (2010) 49 Cal.4th 846, 874.)

3. Analysis

We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to dismiss for pre-charging delay. Defendant presented no evidence that the delay prejudiced him in any way. He offered only unsupported speculation that the rag had exculpatory evidence and that his inability to test it somehow prejudiced him. But "'[t]he showing of prejudice requires some evidence and cannot be presumed.'" (People v. Morris (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1, 37, italics added.) Speculation is not enough.

For instance, in People v. Lewis (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 203, the defendant argued "that he was prejudiced by the loss of the child welfare agency, police, prosecution, and court records." He claimed that "the lost records might have contained information he could have used to impeach" the victim. (Id. at p. 212.) The Lewis court rejected the defendant's argument that the loss of the records prejudiced him because it was "wholly speculative." Like defendant here, the defendant in Lewis failed to make any showing

Page 6