State v. Grad
2022 Ohio 4221
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- In 2008 Grad’s newborn son suffered injuries; a 2014 jury convicted Grad of endangering children and felonious assault; Grad was sentenced to 24 years in 2015. 9th Dist. affirmed on direct appeal and rejected ineffective-assistance claims.
- Grad filed a postconviction petition raising similar arguments; the trial court dismissed and the appellate court affirmed.
- On October 22, 2021 Grad moved for leave to file an untimely Crim.R. 33 motion for a new trial, claiming he was unavoidably prevented from discovering new evidence.
- Grad’s proffered “new” evidence: scientific articles (2016–2021) challenging nonaccidental-trauma diagnostics, lower‑cost whole‑genome/DNA testing, a later medical diagnosis of the victim’s sibling (vitamin D deficiency, hypermobility, Ehlers–Danlos), and media investigative reports critical of the State’s expert.
- The trial court denied leave without a hearing, finding the materials did not show Grad was unavoidably prevented from discovering them (and alternatively that the motion was not filed within a reasonable time). Grad appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by denying leave to file an untimely Crim.R. 33 new‑trial motion without a hearing | Grad: He was unavoidably prevented from timely discovering scientific studies, cheaper DNA testing, sibling’s later medical diagnosis, and investigative reports; thus leave (and a hearing) was required | State: The underlying theories were known and used at trial; experts were identified pretrial and defense cross‑examined the State’s expert on those theories; the proffer does not show unavoidable prevention or timely filing | Court: Affirmed. No abuse of discretion denying leave without a hearing because the submitted materials did not, on their face, show unavoidable prevention |
Key Cases Cited
- No officially reported (final reporter) authorities were cited in this opinion; the court principally relied on Ohio Crim.R. 33 and unpublished/regional appellate authorities and Ohio Supreme Court slip guidance referenced in the opinion.