State v. Dovala
2014 Ohio 2331
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Melissa Dovala was convicted in 2005 of felony murder, felonious assault, child endangering, and involuntary manslaughter for the death of an infant and sentenced to 15 years to life; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
- On post-conviction review (PCR), this court remanded limited ineffective-assistance claims to the trial court to determine whether trial counsel failed to investigate, present expert testimony, or support the defense with expert evidence.
- At the PCR hearing, counsel (James Burge) testified by deposition that he had sought a neurologist’s opinion (identified as “Tom Watson”) confirming the State’s theory that the injury was inflicted and sudden; the trial court later denied PCR and this court affirmed.
- In 2013 Dovala filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion presenting an affidavit from Dr. Thomas Swanson (identified later as the neurologist), who stated he never consulted with Burge or rendered an opinion; Burge submitted an affidavit claiming he received an unofficial opinion indirectly via co-counsel Laura Perkovic, who was married to Dr. Swanson at the time.
- The trial court allowed a deposition of Perkovic, which contradicted Burge’s earlier testimony and supported Dr. Swanson’s affidavit, but the trial court denied the Civ.R. 60(B) motion without discussing Perkovic’s deposition in its entry.
- The appellate court concluded the trial court abused its discretion by failing to adequately consider whether the newly presented evidence—if believed—created extraordinary circumstances under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) and by improperly treating the new evidence as merely cumulative; the matter was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dovala) | Defendant's Argument (State / Burge) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a Civ.R. 60(B) motion based on newly discovered evidence that counsel did not obtain/possess a neurologist’s opinion as previously represented | The newly discovered affidavits/deposition (Dr. Swanson and Perkovic) show Burge’s prior testimony about consulting a neurologist was false or misleading, which undermines the PCR denial and warrants relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(5); she also alleged a meritorious ineffective-assistance claim | The State and Burge maintained either that Burge reasonably relied on an unofficial opinion relayed through Perkovic or that there was no fraud on the court; the new evidence is cumulative and would not necessarily change the PCR outcome | Court reversed: trial court abused discretion by failing to analyze whether the new evidence created extraordinary circumstances under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) and by improperly treating the evidence as merely cumulative; remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Strack v. Pelton, 70 Ohio St.3d 172 (1994) (standard: trial court’s Civ.R. 60(B) decision reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion defined)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976) (requirements to prevail on a Civ.R. 60(B) motion)
- Caruso-Ciresi, Inc. v. Lohman, 5 Ohio St.3d 64 (1983) (Civ.R. 60(B)(5) is a narrow catch-all for extraordinary circumstances)
- Coulson v. Coulson, 5 Ohio St.3d 12 (1983) (fraud upon the court can justify relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(5))
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17 (1988) (movant need only allege a meritorious defense to obtain Civ.R. 60(B) relief)