State v. Chavis-Tucker
2014 Ohio 3050
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant-appellant was convicted in 1996 of aggravated murder of Ernest Penn III at Club Alexander in Columbus.
- Appellant later moved for a new trial in 2012 based on juror misconduct (alleged undisclosed jury knowledge of Club Alexander).
- The movant presented an affidavit suggesting a juror had personally been at the club, contrary to voir dire.
- The trial court denied the motion on its merits and because it was untimely under Crim.R. 33(A)(2) and 33(B).
- The appellate court reviews the trial court’s denial of a delayed motion for an abuse-of-discretion standard.
- The court affirmatively held that the untimely motion was not timely filed nor properly supported for leave, so no hearing was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a hearing on the untimely motion for new trial based on juror misconduct. | Chavis-Tucker argues juror misconduct and unavoi dable delay require a hearing. | State contends untimely filing and lack of unavoidable delay justify denial. | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Green, 2013-Ohio-5327 (10th Dist. No. 13AP-260) (abuse-of-discretion standard for postconviction/Crim.R. 33 matters)
- State v. Moncrief, 2013-Ohio-4571 (10th Dist. No. 13AP-391) (clarifies abuse-of-discretion review and legal error prohibition)
- State v. Golden, 2010-Ohio-4438 (10th Dist. No. 09AP-1004) (untimely Crim.R. 33 motions require leave to file)
- State v. Gover, 2013-Ohio-3366 (10th Dist. No. 12AP-777) (leave to file delayed motion must be granted for timely consideration)
- State v. Townsend, 2008-Ohio-6518 (10th Dist. No. 08AP-371) (abuse-of-discretion standard for denied Crim.R. 33(B) motions)
- State v. Carson, 2007-Ohio-6382 (10th Dist. No. 07AP-492) (proof of unavoidable delay required for leave; clear and convincing standard)
- State v. Lee, 2005-Ohio-6374 (10th Dist. No. 05AP-229) (unavoidable delay burden must be met with more than mere assertion)
- State v. Davis, 2004-Ohio-6065 (10th Dist. No. 03AP-1200) (unavoidable delay standard applied)
- State v. Bush, 2009-Ohio-441 (10th Dist. No. 08AP-627) (application of unavoidable-delay requirement)
- State v. Parker, 178 Ohio App.3d 574 (2008-Ohio-5178) (discussion of timely/untimely Crim.R. 33 motions)