State v. Crockett
2016 Ohio 7572
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 2012–2013 Johnnie Crockett III was indicted for murder and two counts of endangering children; a 2014 jury convicted him of murder and two counts of endangering children and acquitted him of felonious assault. He received a life term with parole eligibility after 15 years; the other terms ran concurrent.
- Medical evidence at trial (physicians and radiologists at Nationwide Children’s Hospital and a coroner) attributed the child’s retinal hemorrhages, subdural hemorrhages, spinal/vertebral injuries, liver laceration, and ultimate death to significant trauma consistent with abusive head trauma; defense experts offered alternative theories including hypoxic/ALS-like injury and CPR-related trauma.
- Crockett filed a delayed motion for leave to file a new trial (over 20 months after the verdict) based on allegedly newly discovered medical records from the nursing facility where the child later died and other records.
- The trial court denied leave and the new-trial motion, finding the nursing-facility records were not newly discovered and Crockett was not unavoidably prevented from discovering the records within Crim.R. 33 timetables; it also held Crockett’s ineffective-assistance claim was barred by res judicata.
- The Tenth District affirmed, applying Crim.R. 33 standards for newly discovered evidence, the clear-and-convincing standard for leave, abuse-of-discretion review, and established Ohio precedent that a defendant remains criminally responsible when inflicted injuries are a substantial factor in death even if later medical care contributed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Crockett) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether trial court abused discretion by denying leave to file a delayed new-trial motion under Crim.R. 33(B) | The denial was proper because defendant failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the nursing-facility records within 120 days. | Records from the nursing facility are newly discovered and show medical malpractice/causation separate from Crockett’s conduct, warranting a new trial. | Affirmed: Crockett failed to show he was unavoidably prevented or that the evidence was newly discovered; 20-month delay was unreasonable. |
| 2. Whether the trial court erred by deciding the new-trial motion without an evidentiary hearing | The court reasonably denied leave on the pleadings because Crockett did not meet Crim.R. 33(B) thresholds. | An evidentiary hearing was required to evaluate the purportedly new records and their impact. | Denial stands: no abuse of discretion; records were not newly discovered and Crockett did not act with reasonable diligence. |
| 3. Whether ineffective-assistance claims premised on counsel’s failure to obtain nursing-home records are reviewable | Res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal; Crockett could have raised these issues earlier. | Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and introduce nursing-home records that would have shown intervening medical causation. | Affirmed: claim barred by res judicata; even on the merits the causation argument fails under Ohio law—defendant remains responsible if his inflicted injuries were a substantial factor in death. |
| 4. Whether subsequent medical care at the nursing facility absolves Crockett of criminal responsibility for the child’s death | The State argues medical records do not negate the coroner and treating physicians’ findings that initial traumatic brain injury by nonaccidental trauma produced the coma and eventual death. | Crockett contends later medical care (or errors) at the nursing facility was the proximate cause of death, not his conduct. | Held: Coroner and treating experts tied the ultimate death to the brain injury caused earlier; subsequent care does not absolve culpability where defendant’s injuries were a substantial factor. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Steffen, 70 Ohio St.3d 399 (Ohio 1994) (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
- State v. Hanna, 95 Ohio St.3d 285 (Ohio 2002) (defendant remains criminally responsible when inflicted injuries are a substantial factor in death despite later medical treatment)
- Schiebel v. [unrelated party cited as standard], 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1990) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing Crim.R. 33 rulings)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (definition and burden of clear and convincing evidence)
- Petro v. [unrelated party cited as standard], 148 Ohio St. 505 (Ohio 1947) (standards for newly discovered evidence in new-trial context)
- Walden v. [unrelated party cited as standard], 19 Ohio App.3d 141 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1984) (procedural timing for Crim.R. 33 new-trial motions)
- Lordi v. [unrelated party cited as standard], 149 Ohio App.3d 627 (Ohio Ct. App.) (failure to obtain leave to file an untimely new-trial motion precludes merits review)