State v. Grice
2012 Ohio 1938
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Grice was convicted by jury of burglary and theft of property over $500 stemming from an August 28, 2010 incident in Cleveland, Ohio.
- Charawn Thomas testified she saw two men carrying Erionne Thomas’s TV and stand from her address to 2351 Louise Harris Drive and later observed damage and missing items at Erionne’s apartment.
- Police located the items at 2351 Louise Harris Drive; Deron Grant admitted to participating in the burglary/theft, and Grice was arrested shortly after.
- Grice testified he arrived at Smith’s unit and that the stolen property was already inside, claiming he did not personally take part; he also presented a nephew’s supposed confession as part of his new-trial argument.
- Grice moved for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence and actual innocence claims; the trial court denied the motion; sentencing occurred with an apparent omission of court costs in the oral proceedings, though the journal entry later set costs.
- The appellate court affirmed the convictions, affirmed in part but reversed in part for a limited remand to address court-cost issues consistent with State v. Joseph.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| New-trial due to newly discovered evidence | State argues no abuse of discretion; record shows credibility issues. | Grice asserts his nephew confessed and exculpates him. | Denied on review; no abuse of discretion. |
| Admissibility of shoe-print testimony | State presents lay testimony under Evid.R. 701 linking shoe tread to the scene. | Grice challenges as improper expert testimony. | Admissible under Evid.R. 701. |
| Limiting closing argument on lack of flight | State contends proper trial management; argument within discretion. | Grice claims restriction prejudiced defense. | Not an abuse of discretion; no reversible error. |
| Sufficiency and weight of the evidence | State contends evidence supports conviction beyond reasonable doubt. | Grice argues insufficient/misweighed evidence. | Convictions supported by sufficient evidence and weight of the evidence. |
| Court costs sentencing error | State concedes failure to orally impose costs during sentencing. | Grice seeks proper imposition and possible waiver. | Eleventh assignment sustained; remand for limited sentencing hearing on costs per Joseph. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505 (1947) (review of new-trial decisions rests in trial court's discretion)
- State v. Lopa, 96 Ohio St. 410 (1917) (support for discretionary standard in new-trial rulings)
- State v. Spirko, 59 Ohio St.3d 1 (1991) (standard for plain-error review and jury instruction assessment)
- State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978) (plain-error and review framework for trial-court rulings)
- State v. Joseph, 125 Ohio St.3d 76 (2010) (remand for limited sentencing hearing on court costs)