Fairfield v. Spradlin, 2017 Ohio 876

Gerald Spradlin (appellant) visited the hospital to see his newborn grandson the day after the birth; the room contained the mother, her boyfriend, maternal grandmother, and the boyfriend's mother.
When Spradlin entered, he kissed the baby and made a sotto voce remark (e.g., “this will all be over soon”), then launched a verbal tirade including insults, allegations of abuse, and a threat to kill the boyfriend if he ever laid hands on the child.
Hospital security was notified and Spradlin left; he was charged with disorderly conduct under Fairfield Codified Ordinance 509.03 and tried in municipal court. The court found him guilty after a bench trial.
Two weeks after conviction Spradlin moved for a new trial under Crim.R. 33, alleging the state’s witnesses lied; he produced for the first time an audio recording made covertly during the incident that he said contradicted witnesses’ testimony.
The trial court denied the motion; Spradlin appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion in refusing a new trial based on alleged witness misconduct and the newly disclosed recording.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a Crim.R. 33 motion for a new trial based on alleged witness misconduct	The State argued witness testimony was not perjurious and any minor inconsistencies did not amount to prosecutorial or witness misconduct that deprived Spradlin of a fair trial	Spradlin argued witnesses lied and the covert audio recording would prove misconduct and prejudice, warranting a new trial under Crim.R. 33(A)(2)	Court affirmed: inconsistencies did not rise to misconduct; the audio generally corroborated witnesses and Spradlin’s failure to introduce it at trial undermined any claim of prejudice or entitlement to a new trial

Hancock v. State, 108 Ohio St.3d 57 (2006) (standard for abuse of discretion and review of trial-court rulings)