State v. Boone
2017 Ohio 843
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 1998 Boone was convicted by a jury of four counts of felonious assault with firearm specifications; this court affirmed on direct appeal.
- Boone repeatedly sought postconviction relief; in 2014 he filed a motion for leave to file an untimely Crim.R. 33 motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence (actual-innocence claim).
- Boone relied primarily on an affidavit from his half-brother, Oliver Bryan, asserting Boone’s noninvolvement; the affidavit was drafted in 1998 and had been previously filed in postconviction petitions.
- Boone also referenced a forensic report he said he recently discovered in records from prior counsel, but did not specify when he obtained it.
- The trial court denied leave to file the delayed Crim.R. 33 motion on res judicata grounds; Boone appealed the denial.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding Boone failed to show by clear and convincing proof that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the asserted newly discovered evidence, and that his proffered affidavit could not qualify as newly discovered evidence because it was available at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Boone was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence supporting a delayed Crim.R. 33(A)(6) motion | State: Boone did not meet the clear-and-convincing burden to show unavoidable prevention; evidence was available earlier. | Boone: He lacked knowledge that an actual-innocence claim could be raised via Crim.R. 33 and only recently discovered exculpatory evidence (affidavit and forensic report). | Held: No — affidavit dated 1998 was already known and could have been used at trial; forensic report timing not proven; Boone failed to show unavoidable prevention. |
| Whether the trial court erred by denying leave without a hearing | State: The court acted within its discretion given the filings. | Boone: Denial without hearing violated due process and fairness; his motion was properly pled and substantively supported. | Held: No abuse of discretion — trial court properly denied leave without hearing given lack of clear-and-convincing proof of unavoidable prevention. |
| Whether res judicata bars Boone’s Crim.R. 33 request | State: Res judicata precludes relitigation of claims previously raised. | Boone: Res judicata should not apply where conviction is contrary to law or newly discovered exculpatory evidence demonstrates a fundamental miscarriage of justice. | Held: Court affirmed denial but on alternate grounds (failure to prove unavoidable prevention), not solely on res judicata. |
| Whether a post-trial affidavit from a witness who could have testified at trial can be newly discovered evidence | State: Such affidavits are not newly discovered if the witness was available at trial but not called. | Boone: The affidavit demonstrates innocence and qualifies as newly discovered evidence. | Held: The affidavit cannot be newly discovered evidence when it was available pre- or at trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bush, 96 Ohio St.3d 235 (2002) (discusses independence of collateral procedures and post-sentence relief mechanisms)
- State v. Walden, 19 Ohio App.3d 141 (10th Dist. 1984) (defines "unavoidably prevented" standard for delayed Crim.R. 33 motions)