State v. Blalock
2017 Ohio 2658
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2001 Marcus Blalock was tried and convicted for the shooting death of Howard Rose; key prosecution witness Arketa Willis testified that Blalock killed Rose. Blalock received lengthy concurrent and consecutive prison terms.
- Blalock repeatedly asserted after trial that Willis was the actual shooter and that other co-defendants (McCauley, Johnson) provided exculpatory statements; he filed multiple motions for a new trial based on those allegations.
- Federal habeas proceedings considered recorded phone calls between Willis and McCauley (made in prison) in which they discussed inconsistencies and admissions; the federal courts found the recordings raised questions but denied relief absent a constitutional violation.
- The state produced a notarized 2006 statement by McCauley implicating Blalock as the shooter; McCauley later recanted at a 2014 evidentiary hearing, but the notary (attorney Shaughnessy) testified he would not notarize a blank statement.
- Blalock’s third motion for a new trial relied on an affidavit from a fellow inmate (Drake) who said he overheard recorded calls and letters suggesting Willis framed Blalock; the trial court denied the new-trial motion and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court followed law of the case from prior remand | State: trial court complied with remand to hold hearing on unavoidable discovery | Blalock: trial court failed to follow appellate mandate and law of the case | Court: No error — trial court granted leave and held the required hearing; law of the case satisfied |
| Whether evidence qualifies as "newly discovered" under Crim.R. 33(A)(6) and (B) | State: evidence is not new, is cumulative, and barred by res judicata | Blalock: recordings/letters/Drake affidavit are newly discovered and would likely change result | Court: Evidence was not new or was cumulative; Blalock had prior knowledge; res judicata applies; no abuse of discretion denying new trial |
| Whether Blalock demonstrated actual innocence sufficient to warrant relief | Blalock: newly presented evidence shows strong probability verdict would be different; actual innocence established | State: no constitutional violation shown; evidence is impeaching/cumulative and does not meet high threshold | Court: Herrera controls; no constitutional violation; burden for actual innocence not met; claim denied |
| Whether prosecutorial misconduct (use of perjured testimony) requires new trial | Blalock: prosecutor used/relied on perjured or false testimony by Willis | State: no evidence prosecutor knew of perjury | Court: No showing state knew of perjury; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 1984) (articulates the law-of-the-case principle)
- Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1993) (actual-innocence claim does not itself provide federal habeas relief absent constitutional violation)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (defines abuse-of-discretion standard)
- State v. Hill, 64 Ohio St.3d 313 (Ohio 1992) (motion for new trial on newly discovered evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1990) (same)
- State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505 (Ohio 1947) (sets elements for newly discovered evidence under Crim.R. 33)