State v. English
2017 Ohio 8870
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2013 Cierra English was tried and convicted of three counts of felonious assault for striking two men (Fisher and Lavender) with her car in a parking lot; surveillance showed the victims struck from behind and one dragged under the car.
- English claimed a prior romantic relationship with Fisher had ended and that Fisher had been stalking her; her tires had been slashed earlier that night. She testified she panicked and did not intend to hurt the men.
- English was sentenced to an aggregate seven-year prison term; on direct appeal this court affirmed convictions but ordered merger of allied offenses and remanded for resentencing.
- In June 2016 English filed (and the trial court deemed filed) a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence: a June 17, 2013 email from parking-lot attendants (the Kuntzs) saying they saw Fisher acting ‘‘suspiciously’’ near a different lot earlier that evening.
- The trial court denied the motion without a hearing, finding English failed to prove newly discovered evidence. English appealed solely arguing the denial without a hearing was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by denying English’s Crim.R. 33 motion for a new trial without a hearing | State: the Kuntzs’ email was not newly discovered evidence that would have changed the verdict; English knew of the Diamond lot attendants and had raised them on appeal | English: the Kuntzs’ email is newly discovered and could have supported a lesser aggravated-assault verdict by showing provocation | Court: No error — the email was not new and would not likely change the result; denial without hearing was within discretion |
| Whether the Kuntzs’ statement satisfied Crim.R. 33/Petro factors for a new trial | State: the statement does not show sudden passion/provocation and did not come from eyewitnesses to the tire-slashing; it is at best cumulative or impeachment | English: the statement would have supported provocation and, with due diligence, she could not have obtained it earlier | Court: The statement fails Petro factors (not clearly newly discovered, not material to provocation, and largely cumulative/impeaching); motion properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505, 76 N.E.2d 370 (1947) (sets six-factor test for new trial based on newly discovered evidence)
- State v. Matthews, 81 Ohio St.3d 375, 691 N.E.2d 1041 (1998) (trial court’s ruling on new-trial motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71, 564 N.E.2d 54 (1990) (no automatic hearing required on new-trial motions; hearing is discretionary)
- State v. Tomlinson, 125 Ohio App.3d 13, 707 N.E.2d 955 (11th Dist. 1997) (decision to hold a hearing on a new-trial motion is within the trial court’s sound discretion)