State v. Cannon
2016 Ohio 3173
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant Demetrice Cannon was convicted at a bench trial of murder and having a weapon while under a disability after he shot a victim following an argument; court found at least four shots were fired and four shell casings found.
- Two eyewitnesses at trial, Demarco Parker and Brittany Baker‑Terrell, testified they saw Cannon shoot the victim; Cannon testified he shot in self‑defense.
- Cannon was sentenced to 19 years to life; his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- After direct appeal, Cannon filed a Crim.R. 33 motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence: an affidavit from trial witness Parker recanting his trial testimony.
- The trial court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing; Cannon appealed the denial as a due‑process violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Cannon) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion or violated due process by summarily denying a Crim.R. 33(A)(6) motion based on a witness recantation without a hearing | The recantation does not create a strong probability of a different result; other eyewitness testimony and Cannon’s own admission that he shot the victim make the recantation immaterial; no hearing required | Parker’s affidavit is newly discovered, recantation shows actual innocence, court erred by denying a hearing and refusing a new trial | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion. The recantation would not strongly probably change the verdict and denial without hearing was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Petro, 76 N.E.2d 370 (Ohio 1947) (establishes six‑factor test for newly discovered evidence justification for new trial)
- Taylor v. Ross, 83 N.E.2d 222 (Ohio 1948) (trial judge who saw live testimony is best situated to assess recantations)
- State v. Schiebel, 564 N.E.2d 54 (Ohio 1990) (appellate review of trial court's discretionary decision on new‑trial motions)
- United States v. Curry, 497 F.2d 99 (5th Cir. 1974) (trial judge’s advantage in ruling on new‑trial motions without hearing where judge observed witnesses)