2013 Ohio 2549
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Dew was indicted in 2007 on multiple counts of sexual crimes; superseding indictments expanded charges to rape, corruption of a minor, and gross sexual imposition across two victims, later consolidated for trial.
- Dew was convicted on four counts of rape, one count of corruption of a minor, and two counts of gross sexual imposition; three rape convictions and one gross sexual imposition conviction were upheld on appeal, while others were vacated.
- Dew filed untimely post-verdict appeals and, two weeks after, pro se motions in 2011 seeking grand jury transcripts and leave to file a delayed Crim.R. 33 motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
- Trial court ruled it lacked jurisdiction to rule on both the grand jury transcripts motion and the Crim.R. 33 motion, taking the position that issues should have been raised on direct appeal.
- Dew appealed, with the appellate court initially addressing jurisdictional issues and ultimately determining the Crim.R. 33 leave motion was properly within the trial court’s jurisdiction while the grand jury transcripts issue was barred by res judicata.
- Opinion ultimately remanded to the trial court to rule on the Crim.R. 33 motion for leave to file a delayed motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, and affirmed the trial court on the grand jury transcripts issue due to res judicata.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to decide Crim.R.33 leave motion | Dew contends trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on leave to file a delayed Crim.R.33 motion | Dew argues the court did have jurisdiction to consider the post-trial relief request | Trial court had jurisdiction; remand to rule on Crim.R.33 motion |
| Grand jury transcripts and particularized need | Dew seeks grand jury transcripts; argues a particularized need supported disclosure | State contends no demonstrated particularized need or that issue was barred by res judicata | Grand jury transcripts issue barred by res judicata; affirm on this point; remand limited to Crim.R.33 ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (Ohio 1967) (res judicata and procedural defenses in criminal appeals; standard relief law)
- State v. Davis, 131 Ohio St.3d 1 (2011) (trial courts retain jurisdiction over post-trial Crim.R. 33 motions; safety net for post-judgment relief)
- State v. Greer, 66 Ohio St.2d 139 (Ohio 1981) (requirement of particularized need to disclose grand jury materials)
- State v. Noogle, 67 Ohio St.3d 31 (Ohio 1993) (Noogle standard guiding secrecy vs. disclosure in grand jury context)