State v. Grad, 2024 Ohio 5710

Background

Kenneth Grad was convicted in 2014 of felonious assault and child endangering after his infant son was found with 26 bone fractures, based on expert testimony attributing the injuries to abuse due to the absence of other explanations.
The conviction rested heavily on a medical expert's process-of-elimination method, ruling out genetic and metabolic conditions as causes, largely by relying on the medical understanding at the time.
Seven years later, Grad moved for leave to file a delayed motion for new trial under Crim.R. 33(A)(6), presenting several scientific studies published after his trial that challenged key assertions made by the state’s medical expert.
The trial court denied Grad’s motion without a hearing, reasoning that the new studies merely confirmed theories already available at trial and thus did not constitute truly “new” evidence.
The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in this denial, emphasizing that Grad’s counsel had access to similar experts and theories at trial.
The Ohio Supreme Court reviewed whether newly published scientific studies can qualify as "newly discovered evidence" and whether Grad was entitled to a hearing on his motion for leave.

Issues

Issue	Grad's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Can posttrial scientific studies qualify as newly discovered evidence under Crim.R. 33(A)(6)?	Yes; even if theories existed, new studies may significantly shift scientific consensus and provide new support for the defense.	No; studies merely confirming theories known at trial shouldn’t be "new", especially if experts with those opinions were available then.	Yes; posttrial developments that materially change scientific understanding can be newly discovered evidence if they shift the defense’s argument significantly.
Was Grad unavoidably prevented from discovering such studies before trial?	Yes; the studies and their scientific impacts arose after trial—newly published data and analysis could not have been obtained earlier.	No; the underlying theories were available, and Grad’s counsel had access to experts advancing them at trial.	Yes; publication and acceptance of new scientific findings posttrial can be outside Grad’s control.
Is a hearing required for a late motion for new trial if prima facie evidence of unavoidable prevention is shown?	Yes; a hearing is required if the defendant meets a prima facie threshold for new, unavoidably prevented evidence.	No; if new evidence is merely cumulative or based on previously known theories, no hearing is required.	Yes; a hearing is mandatory if defendant presents prima facie evidence of unavoidable prevention from discovering new evidence.
Should the lower courts have denied Grad’s motion without a hearing?	No; the trial court should have explored the significance and impact of new scientific evidence at a hearing.	Yes; because the evidence and theories were not truly new, a hearing was unnecessary.	No; trial court abused discretion by not holding a hearing—remanded for consideration.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505 (1947) (outlines standard for granting new trials on grounds of newly discovered evidence)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (sets the standard for admissibility of expert scientific testimony)
State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (1980) (defines "abuse of discretion" standard)
State v. Parker, 2008-Ohio-5178 (appellate standard for entitlement to a hearing on a new trial motion)