2017 Ohio 202
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Randall Cremeans was indicted for aggravated burglary, multiple counts of kidnapping and aggravated robbery, and having weapons while under disability after he and a codefendant entered a home and victimized seven people while seeking a third person.
- Trial in October 2015: jury convicted Cremeans on the tried counts; bench found weapons count guilty; aggregate sentence 30 years. Convictions were previously affirmed on direct appeal.
- Cremeans filed a pro se motion for new trial (Nov. 2015) and a supplemental counsel motion (Mar. 2016) asserting newly discovered evidence (witness recantation), improper witness separation, and prosecutorial misconduct; hearing held April 5, 2016 and motion denied.
- Central newly discovered evidence: affidavit and an audio recording from trial witness Tamica Alexander later claiming she lied at trial about Cremeans having a gun; at the new-trial hearing Alexander recanted the recantation and reaffirmed her trial testimony that Cremeans had a gun.
- Other defense affidavits alleged hallway witness discussions and that Jeremiah Marple would have contradicted gun testimony; Marple’s affidavit was withdrawn as inaccurate and he was not called at the new-trial hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence (recantation) | State argued recantation was unreliable and trial evidence supports conviction | Cremeans argued Alexander’s affidavit/audio show she perjured herself at trial and new evidence would change result | Court denied: recantation found uncredible and would not materially affect outcome; denial not abuse of discretion |
| Separation of witnesses / unfair trial | State: no evidence trial fairness was impaired | Cremeans: witnesses conferred in hallway and influenced testimony | Court found no proof of prejudice; no unfair trial shown |
| Confrontation clause re: Jeremiah Marple | State: Marple was not prevented from testifying; defense could have called him | Cremeans: prosecutor removed Marple and withheld his testimony | Court: no confrontation violation; Marple’s affidavit withdrawn; issue could have been raised earlier |
| Prosecutorial misconduct / Brady violation | State: no withholding of exculpatory evidence; key witnesses testified and were cross-examined | Cremeans: prosecutor withheld Marple and suppressed Alexander’s alleged recantation | Court rejected misconduct claim; held barred by res judicata or without merit |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (1990) (motion for new trial under Crim.R. 33 is reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion standard defined)
- State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505 (1947) (factors for granting a new trial based on newly discovered evidence)
- State v. Lopa, 96 Ohio St. 410 (1919) (recantation and newly discovered evidence principles)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (res judicata bars issues that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)