and W.Va. Const, art. 3, § 10. The presumption is rebuttable by the government. 269 S.E.2d at 394, Syl. Pt. 1. As the State points out, however, the facts in Hey differ substantially from those present in this case. In Hey, the State “had all the evidence upon which to proeeed[ ]” during that eleven-year span, whereas in the instant case the State maintains that not until April of 1992 did Lewis and Walton provide information implicating Appellant. 269 S.E.2d at 395. In Hundley v. Ashworth, 181 W.Va. 379, 382 S.E.2d 573 (1989), we refused to apply the burden-shifting mechanism announced in Hey “because the prosecutor was not shown to have knowledge of the identity and location of the defendant.” Id. at 382, 382 S.E.2d at 576; accord State v. Carrico, 189 W.Va. 40, 427 S.E.2d 474 (1993) (<HOLDING>). As was the case in Hundley, there is no need
holding that states inadvertent or negligent destruction of evidence did not violate defendants due process rights holding that twoyear preindictment delay did not violate defendants due process rights since government promptly sought indictment upon securing sufficient evidence holding that the government may appeal trial courts dismissal of count in indictment because of prejudice caused by preindictment delay without violating double jeopardy principles holding that the preindictment delay was a due process violation because actual prejudice was shown and the state had shown absolutely no need for any investigative delay holding that twoyear delay was not reasonable