State v. Cowan
2020 Ohio 666
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background:
- 2012 jury convicted Craig A. Cowan of felonious assault and multiple firearm offenses; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Years of postconviction filings followed. In July 2018 a family friend obtained parts of the Cleveland Police Offense/Incident Report via a public records request showing Detective Don Meel’s firearms testing note: “processed using cyanoacrolate [fuming] and white powder with negative results. No prints. No trace.”
- Cowan (pro se) filed a motion for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial on January 2, 2019, asserting the Meel report was newly discovered/Brady material and that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering it within Crim.R. 33(B)’s 120‑day deadline.
- The state opposed and produced evidence (Bates stamp on the pages and an assistant prosecutor’s affidavit) indicating the same Offense/Incident Report had been included in the electronic discovery package provided to defense counsel in June 2011.
- The trial court denied Cowan’s motion for leave without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal the court reviewed whether the documents on their face established unavoidable delay or newly discovered evidence and affirmed the denial; the ineffective‑assistance argument likewise failed because the threshold unavoidable‑delay showing was not met.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to hold a hearing on Cowan’s motion for leave to file a delayed motion for new trial (unavoidable‑delay claim) | Cowan: police report (Meel) was newly obtained in 2018 via public records; he was unavoidably prevented from discovering it earlier | State: the report was part of pretrial discovery (Bates stamp); Cowan failed to show unavoidable prevention | Denied — documents on their face did not show unavoidable delay; Bates stamping indicated report was previously provided to defense counsel |
| Whether the state suppressed exculpatory Brady material | Cowan: Meel’s testing results were material exculpatory evidence withheld in violation of Brady and due process | State: material was disclosed to defense counsel in discovery; no suppression | Denied — record showed the report had been included in discovery; no basis to find Brady violation on the submitted documents |
| Whether Cowan’s trial counsel was ineffective for not calling Detective Meel | Cowan: counsel should have called Meel and other crime‑scene personnel; omission prejudiced his trial | State: Cowan failed to raise this claim properly below and did not satisfy the threshold for a delayed new‑trial motion | Denied — claim not raised/established below; threshold unavoidable‑delay requirement not met, so ineffective‑assistance claim not reached |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- State v. Johnston, 39 Ohio St.3d 48 (1988) (Ohio precedent referenced on disclosure/Brady principles)
- State v. Mathis, 134 Ohio App.3d 77 (1999) (standard for leave to file a delayed motion for new trial; must show unavoidable prevention)
- State v. Walden, 19 Ohio App.3d 141 (1984) (definition of “unavoidably prevented” — no knowledge and could not have learned with reasonable diligence)
- State v. McConnell, 170 Ohio App.3d 800 (2007) (purpose of Crim.R. 33 and limits on collateral delay; evidentiary hearing required only when submitted documents on their face support unavoidable‑delay claim)