State v. Gillispie
2012 Ohio 1656
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Gillispie was convicted in 1991 of multiple offenses related to two August 1988 rapes; a later new-trial was granted due to hairs found post-trial that did not belong to him.
- On remand, Gillispie was retried in 1991 and again convicted; subsequent DNA testing showed hairs belonged to others, leading to post-conviction efforts.
- From 1996 onward, Gillispie pursued post-conviction relief and, in 2009, the court allowed a Crim.R. 33 hearing on new-evidence concerning an alternative suspect, Kevin Cobb.
- On remand, the trial court ruled most newly discovered evidence was inadmissible hearsay and not material to Gillispie’s defense, denying a new trial.
- The appellate court held the Cobb evidence is not hearsay, is material, and likely would produce a different trial result; the trial court’s order denying a new trial was reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cobb evidence is admissible under Crim.R. 33 and Evid.R. 403 | Gillispie argues the Cobb evidence is not hearsay and has nexus to the crimes | State contends the Cobb evidence is hearsay and lacks nexus | Yes; not hearsay, admissible with nexus and probative value |
| Whether Cobb evidence creates a strong probability of a different outcome | Gillispie asserts the evidence would cast doubt and likely acquit | State contends the evidence is insufficient to warrant a new trial | Yes; strong probability of a different result at a new trial |
| Whether trial court properly balanced admissibility under Petro and Evid.R. 403 | Gillispie contends the court abused discretion by excluding potentially probative material | State argues proper weighing of probative value against prejudice | No abuse of discretion; remand necessary for new-trial consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505 (1947) (syllabus: strong probability standard for new-trial evidence)
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (1990) (Crim.R. 33 standard; abuse standard of review)
- Dayton v. Martin, 43 Ohio App.3d 87 (1987) (new-trial determination guided by Petro principles)
- Maurer v. State, 15 Ohio St.3d 239 (1984) (hearsay and non-hearsay distinctions in evidentiary rulings)
- Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986) (constitutional defense access to complete evidence; due process)
- Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006) (extraneous evidence; balance against risk of confusion)
- LeMar v. State, 95 Ohio St.3d 181 (2002) (admissibility and evaluation of new-evidence theories)