State v. [D.M.]
2015 Ohio 4257
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- D.M. was tried in March 2010 on rape, sexual battery, and gross sexual imposition charges involving his then 11–12-year-old stepdaughter; jury convicted and court sentenced him to a total of 15 years to life.
- The State produced in discovery a multi-part document admitted at trial as "State's Exhibit A," which contained mixed material (forensic hearsay, prior-acts references, alleged clergy confession, victim sexual-history material, and inconsistencies).
- D.M. did not object to Exhibit A at trial; trial counsel had Exhibit A in discovery two months before trial and the exhibit was discussed during witness testimony.
- D.M. attempted to file a motion for leave to file a delayed motion for new trial in 2014, arguing he only recently became aware of Exhibit A's prejudicial contents; the motion was actually filed August 12, 2014.
- The trial court denied leave to file the delayed new-trial motion; D.M. appealed the denial, contending he was unavoidably prevented from timely filing under Crim.R. 33.
- The appellate court reviewed whether the defense (as a represented party) was unavoidably prevented from discovering Exhibit A or its contents and whether Exhibit A qualified as "newly discovered evidence."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (D.M.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether D.M. was unavoidably prevented from filing a timely motion for new trial under Crim.R. 33(B) | The defense had Exhibit A in discovery and counsel knew or could have known its contents; no clear-and-convincing proof of being unavoidably prevented | D.M. personally did not know Exhibit A's contents and only recently discovered them, so he was prevented from timely filing | Held: No. Party was represented; Exhibit A was produced two months before trial, discussed at trial, and thus not "unavoidably prevented" discovery |
| Whether Exhibit A constituted "newly discovered evidence" under Crim.R. 33(A)(6) | Exhibit A was available pretrial and used at trial, so it is not newly discovered | Exhibit A contains prejudicial material D.M. only recently became aware of, so it warrants a new-trial motion | Held: No. Exhibit A was in defendant’s counsel’s possession pretrial and admitted at trial; not newly discovered |
| Whether counsel’s failure to object to Exhibit A amounts to newly discovered evidence of ineffective assistance | State: Strategic choices by counsel and mixed contents of Exhibit A do not establish newly discovered evidence of counsel’s ineffectiveness | D.M. implies counsel’s failure shows he lacked basis to file earlier; characterizes tardy discovery as newly discovered ineffective assistance | Held: No. Court found no basis to infer counsel was ineffective; strategic nonobjection is not newly discovered evidence of ineffectiveness |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying leave to file delayed motion for new trial | State: Trial court acted within discretion given record showing pretrial disclosure and trial admission | D.M.: Denial was unreasonable and contrary to Crim.R. 33 | Held: No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Walden, 19 Ohio App.3d 141 (10th Dist. 1984) (defines "unavoidably prevented" for Crim.R. 33 purposes)
- State v. Johnson, 112 Ohio St.3d 210 (2006) (strategic trial decisions do not necessarily establish ineffective assistance)
- Lundgren v. Mitchell, 440 F.3d 754 (6th Cir. 2006) (discusses ineffective-assistance standards and strategic choices)
- State v. Campbell, 69 Ohio St.3d 38 (1994) (strategic failure to object is not per se ineffective assistance)