2023 Ohio 1657
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- In Jan. 2012 Robert Davis, DeMarcus Williams, and Rasheem "Mal" Carr planned and committed a robbery during which Alexander Anderson was fatally shot. Williams initially implicated Davis as the shooter, later changed statements, and ultimately pleaded guilty to lesser charges in exchange for testifying.
- At trial Williams testified (consistent with his plea deal) implicating Davis; a jury convicted Davis of felony murder and aggravated robbery and sentenced him to 15 years to life.
- Years later Williams wrote letters and executed an affidavit recanting his trial testimony, claiming Davis was not involved. Davis sought leave to file a delayed Crim.R. 33(A)(6) motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
- The trial court granted a hearing but, after evaluating Williams’ hearing testimony, letters, prosecution records, and prior statements, found the recantation not credible and concluded it was cumulative/impeaching. The court denied the new-trial motion.
- Davis appealed, raising six assignments of error focused on standard of review, admissibility/credibility of the recantation, application of Calhoun and Petro/Brown standards, and whether the court’s credibility findings were unreasonable. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for denial of new-trial motion | Davis: de novo review because trial court misapplied law | State: abuse of discretion remains appropriate | Abuse of discretion is proper review; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Does granting a hearing establish pre-hearing credibility of affidavit? | Davis: yes—granting a hearing meant the affidavit was credible under Calhoun | State: no—the hearing threshold is only for unavoidable delay, not pre-judging credibility | Granting a hearing does not establish credibility; Crim.R.33(B) only addresses unavoidable delay |
| Governing test for recanted witness/newly discovered evidence | Davis: Petro controls; trial court should have applied Petro directly | State: Brown (which applies Petro) and Calhoun are appropriate tools | Brown (applying Petro) is the proper framework; trial court applied Petro factors and Brown analysis |
| Whether Williams’ recantation required a new trial | Davis: recantation credible, and absent independent evidence convicting Davis, new trial required | State: recantation not credible, was impeaching/cumulative, jury had heard prior inconsistencies | Recantation found not credible and would be merely impeaching/cumulative; no new trial warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505 (1947) (six-factor test for newly discovered evidence in criminal cases)
- State v. Brown, 186 Ohio App.3d 309 (2010) (two-step test for evaluating recanted testimony: determine which version is credible and whether it would materially affect the outcome)
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (1999) (nonexclusive factors for assessing affidavit credibility in postconviction proceedings)
- Toledo v. Easterling, 26 Ohio App.3d 59 (1985) (applies Petro in the recantation context)
- State v. Lopa, 96 Ohio St. 410 (1917) (earlier articulation of the newly discovered evidence standard)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967) (credibility and weight of evidence are for the trier of fact)