State v. Graggs
2017 Ohio 4454
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- John Q. Graggs was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery, kidnapping, and aggravated murder for the January 8, 2008 shooting death of Fred "Brock"; he received life without parole.
- Evidence at trial included DNA from a green latex glove found under the victim that matched Graggs, a similar glove and a revolver found at Graggs’ residence, cash purchases and a large loan payment by Graggs shortly after the murder, and cell-site records placing him near the apartment the night of the killing.
- Multiple shooters were suggested by the medical evidence (bullets from different guns) and investigators; Jessie Lanier was implicated by other post-trial affidavits in prior unsuccessful new-trial motions.
- In July 2016 Graggs submitted a Crim.R. 33 motion for leave to file a new-trial motion based on newly discovered affidavits from Michael Shepard (claims he was present and Lanier shot Brock) and Lance King (he heard Shepard admit presence).
- The trial court denied leave, finding Graggs failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering Shepard and further that the new evidence would not likely change the verdict; the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Graggs) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Graggs was unavoidably prevented from discovering new evidence (Crim.R. 33(B)) | Graggs failed to prove unavoidable prevention; he belonged to the same social circle and could have investigated witnesses earlier | Shepard’s affidavit is newly discovered; Graggs did not know Shepard until 2016 so discovery was unavoidable | Court: No — Graggs did not show by clear and convincing proof that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering Shepard |
| Whether the alleged newly discovered evidence shows a strong probability of a different result (Petro factors) | New affidavits add little and do not overcome DNA, glove, cash, and cell-site evidence against Graggs | Affidavits placing Lanier as shooter would exculpate or materially affect outcome | Court: No — evidence would not likely change the result given multiplicity of inculpatory evidence and possibility of multiple shooters |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1990) (standard: motions for new trial under Crim.R. 33 are reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505 (Ohio 1947) (elements for new trial based on newly discovered evidence)