State v. Dawson
2011 Ohio 2773
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Dawson was convicted in 1987 of murdering Officer Paul Durkin and sentenced to 18 years to life.
- This court previously affirmed the conviction on appeal to this district (1990).
- On Oct. 12, 2007, Dawson moved for leave to file a motion for a new trial, seeking exhumation and appointment of counsel/investigator.
- Nov. 18, 2009, the trial court overruled the motion for leave; a timely appeal followed.
- Crim.R. 33 requires timely filing of a motion for new trial (14 or 120 days) and proof of unavoidably prevented filing if late; Dawson did not prove unavoidably prevented filing.
- Dawson waited nearly 20 years to pursue the grounds for a new trial and offered only conjecture without affidavits; the court denied leave and affirmed the ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying leave to file a motion for a new trial | Dawson asserts the exhumation theory and Brady grounds warranted leave | State contends late, unsupported, and not proven unavoidably prevented filing | No abuse of discretion; leave properly denied |
| Whether Dawson was properly required to show unavoidably prevented filing to obtain leave | Appellant argues lack of legal knowledge as pro se justifies leniency | Crim.R. 33(B) requires clear proof of unavoidably prevented filing | Yes, unavoidably prevented not demonstrated; leave denied |
| Whether the motion for leave was timely under Crim.R. 33 and related notice requirements | Motion submitted long after deadlines, but pro se status should be considered | Untimely filing precludes consideration unless leave is granted with proof of excuse | Untimely; proper procedure followed; leave denied |
| Whether the Brady/Youngblood framework supports a new-trial motion based on exhumation evidence | Evidence could be materially exculpatory and exhumation could reveal it | Evidence not presented to trial, timing and procedural bars defeat the claim | Brady/Youngblood grounds insufficient to overcome procedural bar; not argued below; denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (favorable evidence suppression violates due process)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) (materiality requires exculpatory or potentially exculpatory evidence)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (materially exculpatory or favorable evidence; standard for Brady)
- State v. Walden, 19 Ohio App.3d 141 (1984) (time limits for filing; need leave to file after Crim.R. 33 deadline)
- State v. Geeslin, 116 Ohio St.3d 252 (2007) (clarifies materiality and due process standards under Brady/Youngblood)
- State v. Lordi, 149 Ohio App.3d 627 (2002) (requirement to file leave to file late motion for new trial)