State v. Gillispie, 2012 Ohio 2942

Gillispie was convicted in 1991 of rape, kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and gross sexual imposition; total sentence 22 to 56 years.
He pursued appeals and post-conviction motions; his 2008 new-trial motion was denied without a hearing.
In an earlier appeal, we reversed, finding sufficient alternate-suspect evidence (Kevin Cobb) to warrant a hearing.
On remand, the trial court denied Gillispie’s motion for a new trial; we again reversed for errors with the new-trial ruling.
Our opinion discussed Cobb’s 1990 Fairfield arrest and stated paragraphs 44–45 regarding that arrest; we later reconsidered and deleted paragraph 45.
The court granted Gillispie’s motion for reconsideration, overruled the State’s motion for reconsideration, and modified the opinion by deleting paragraph 45; the remainder of the opinion stands.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Cobb’s 1990 Fairfield arrest under reverse 404(B)	Gillispie argues reverse 404(B) applies and evidence is admissible	State contends the proper framework was not applied; evidence should be excluded or limited	Paragraphs 44–45 reconsidered; paragraph 45 deleted; Gillispie succeeds on this aspect
Whether the State’s reconsideration motion should be sustained	Gillispie contends the State’s arguments fail to show error	State asserts proper weight and accuracy; seeks reaffirmation	State's motion overruled; Gillispie’s reconsideration granted; opinion modified accordingly

Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (U.S. (2006)) (evidence exclusions must not infringe a meaningful defense)
State v. Lowe, 69 Ohio St.3d 527 (Ohio 1994) (identity and modus operandi evidence; balancing admissibility)
State v. Jamison, 49 Ohio St.3d 182 (Ohio 1990) (modus operandi/identity evidence admissibility)
State v. Curry, 43 Ohio St.2d 66 (Ohio 1975) (identity and other-acts evidence admissibility framework)
State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505 (Ohio 1947) (new-trial based on newly discovered evidence deterrence criteria)