State v. Galloway
2017 Ohio 5841
Ohio Ct. App. 9th2017Background
- In 1990 James Galloway was convicted by a jury of multiple counts of rape and gross sexual imposition involving young children and sentenced to an aggregate 53–95 years in prison.
- Over the years Galloway filed multiple postconviction motions and appeals without success.
- On April 26, 2016 Galloway sought leave to file a delayed Crim.R. 33(A)(6) motion for a new trial, claiming newly discovered evidence that the State’s trial expert was a "phony doctor."
- He submitted 13 documents (letters, records, transcripts); most dated many years earlier and were not authenticated; he also claimed an investigator’s internet search but did not provide the investigator’s affidavit or report.
- The trial court denied leave as untimely under Crim.R. 33(B) and declined to hold a hearing, finding the materials showed no prima facie unavoidable delay.
- The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the 12-year delay unreasonable and that Galloway failed to make a prima facie showing entitling him to a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Crim.R. 33(B) permits denial of leave for delayed new-trial motions based on an alleged unreasonable delay | Galloway: Crim.R. 33(A)(6) contains no time-limit for leave; therefore reasonableness requirement should not apply | State: Ohio precedent permits requiring that leave be sought within a reasonable time after discovery of new evidence; delay here was excessive | Court: Reasonableness standard applies; 12-year delay (and lack of explanation) was unreasonable; denial affirmed |
| Whether the trial court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on the leave request | Galloway: Attached materials sufficiently demonstrate unavoidable delay and entitlement to a hearing | State: Materials do not make a prima facie showing of unavoidable delay; court may summarily deny untimely requests | Court: No abuse of discretion—untimeliness alone justified denial and the submissions failed to show unavoidable delay on their face |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Walden, 19 Ohio App.3d 141, 483 N.E.2d 859 (10th Dist. 1984) (defendant must lack knowledge of evidence and exercise reasonable diligence to show unavoidable prevention)
- State ex rel. Askew v. Goldhart, 75 Ohio St.3d 608, 665 N.E.2d 200 (Ohio 1996) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
- State v. McConnell, 170 Ohio App.3d 800, 869 N.E.2d 77 (2d Dist. 2007) (trial court may summarily deny leave when no prima facie evidence of unavoidable delay)