Lemons v. State
2017 Ohio 6880
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Anthony Lemons was convicted by jury in 1995 of murder and attempted murder and sentenced to 15-to-life; his convictions were later vacated and the state ultimately dismissed the indictment after the victim’s key eyewitness (Jude Adamcik) died and Brady materials emerged.
- In 2013 the criminal trial judge granted Lemons a new trial based on newly discovered/exculpatory evidence (Brady) showing inconsistencies in the eyewitness identification and that shoe evidence could not have linked Lemons to the crime.
- Lemons filed a civil suit (R.C. 2743.48) seeking a declaration he is a “wrongfully imprisoned individual” under two theories: (1) released due to an error in procedure subsequent to sentencing/imprisonment; and (2) actual innocence.
- Lemons amended his complaint, then five days before trial sought leave to reinsert the procedural-error theory; the trial court denied leave and the bench trial proceeded only on actual-innocence (R.C. 2743.48(A)(5)) and the court found Lemons did not prove actual innocence.
- On appeal the court (majority) affirmed that Lemons failed to prove actual innocence by a preponderance, but held the trial court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend and ruled as a matter of law that ongoing Brady violations continuing after sentencing constitute an "error in procedure" under R.C. 2743.48(A)(5), entitling Lemons to a declaration of wrongful imprisonment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lemons proved actual innocence under R.C. 2743.48(A)(5) by a preponderance | Lemons: eyewitness identification was unreliable, police over‑relied on a drug‑addicted, inconsistent witness; shoe evidence and police failures undermined the conviction | State: eyewitness testimony and other evidence support the conviction; Lemons’s credibility (shoes, inconsistent testimony) weakens his claim | Court: Trial court’s factual findings largely sustainable; Lemons did not meet preponderance standard for actual innocence — claim denied |
| Whether an ongoing Brady violation continuing after sentencing can qualify as an "error in procedure" under R.C. 2743.48(A)(5) | Lemons: suppression of exculpatory evidence continued after sentencing (public‑records requests revealed material later), so the Brady violation was ongoing and fits the statute’s "subsequent to sentencing" requirement | State: Mansaray requires the procedural error to occur after sentencing; Mansaray bars Lemons’s theory | Court: Ongoing Brady violation that continues after sentencing is an "error in procedure" under R.C. 2743.48(A)(5); Lemons established this as a matter of law; declaration of wrongful imprisonment warranted |
| Whether the trial court properly denied leave to amend the complaint five days before trial | Lemons: timely moved after controlling authority (Johnston) and no bad faith or prejudice; amendment raised a legal issue | State: amendment was untimely and prejudicial; case was at an advanced stage | Court: Trial court abused its discretion in denying leave; amendment should have been permitted |
| Whether R.C. 2743.48(A)(4) requires vacatur/dismissal "on appeal" | State: language "reversed on appeal" means vacatur/dismissal must be on appeal | Lemons: "vacated, dismissed, or reversed on appeal" is stylistic; vacatur/dismissal by any court satisfies (A)(4) | Court: (majority) textual/legislative‑history reading supports that vacated or dismissed need not be "on appeal"; Lemons meets (A)(4) |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (suppression of material exculpatory evidence by prosecution violates due process)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (Brady material is "material" when disclosure would undermine confidence in the outcome)
- Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449 (2009) (clarifies materiality standard for Brady)
- Walden v. State, 47 Ohio St.3d 47 (1989) (discusses statutory wrongful‑imprisonment framework and separation of wrongful imprisonment claims)
- Doss v. State, 135 Ohio St.3d 211 (2012) (explains R.C. 2743.48 remedial scheme and requirement of proving statutory elements by preponderance)
- Dunbar v. State, 136 Ohio St.3d 181 (2013) (reiterates claimant must prove R.C. 2743.48 elements by preponderance)
- Mansaray v. State, 138 Ohio St.3d 277 (2014) (held the "error in procedure" in amended R.C. 2743.48(A)(5) must occur subsequent to sentencing; rejected retroactive expansion where the procedural error occurred only pre‑sentence)
- Johnston v. State, 144 Ohio St.3d 311 (2015) (held the 2003 amendment to R.C. 2743.48 is retroactive and noted, without deciding, issues about ongoing post‑sentencing Brady violations)