State v. Grissom
2016 Ohio 961
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- In Sept. 2012 a shot was fired from a maroon Ford Expedition that followed and drove alongside Daniel Sammons’ Jeep after a verbal confrontation at a Speedway; Grissom was driving the Expedition and was later tried for felonious assault, firearm specifications, and having weapons while under disability.
- At trial, passenger Londell Johnson testified he heard the shot come from the Expedition but could not identify the shooter; his prior written statement had said Grissom shot, and he also said others told him to implicate Grissom.
- Grissom was convicted by a jury; the convictions and sentence (12 years aggregate) were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Post-appeal, Grissom moved for leave to file a Crim.R. 33 motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence and prosecutorial/coercion misconduct: affidavits from Johnson claimed the State coerced him to implicate Grissom and that Jaye was the actual shooter.
- The trial court denied leave to file the new-trial motion and denied a later App.R. 9(E) motion to correct the trial transcript (audible-response entries); the appellate court affirmed, concluding the alleged newly discovered evidence was explored at trial and the record was substantially accurate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Grissom) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Grissom was unavoidably prevented from discovering evidence supporting a Crim.R. 33 new-trial motion | The alleged coercion and false testimony were not newly discovered; defense explored the same matters at trial; Grissom had opportunity to discover earlier | Johnson’s post-trial affidavit shows the State coerced him to lie and implicate Grissom, which was newly discovered and prevented timely filing | The court held Grissom was not unavoidably prevented; evidence was raised at trial and leave was properly denied |
| Whether the trial transcript must be corrected under App.R. 9(E) to show Johnson answered “No” to direct questions about choice to testify and benefits | Transcript is substantially consistent with testimony; audible gaps reflect the record and are harmless given trial testimony | The transcript omitted Johnson’s “No” answers, which if recorded would show he lied about receiving benefits, supporting a new trial | The court held no abuse of discretion in denying correction; any omission was harmless because cross-examination revealed coercion and benefit issues |
| Whether the alleged prosecutorial/coercion misconduct warrants a new trial | No prosecutorial misconduct that changed outcome; coercion allegations were explored at trial, and other evidence supports conviction even if Grissom did not fire the shot | Prosecutor failed to correct false testimony and participated in coercion; this undermines fairness and requires a new trial | The court held coercion and inducement claims were within trial record; they do not qualify as newly discovered evidence sufficient to grant leave |
| Standard of review for denial of leave to file and for record correction | Trial court applied Crim.R. 33(B) leave standard and App.R. 9(E); appellate review is abuse of discretion | Grissom argues factual errors and due-process violation require reversal | The appellate court applied abuse-of-discretion review and found no abuse in the trial court’s rulings |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Walden, 19 Ohio App.3d 141 (10th Dist. 1984) (defines "unavoidably prevented" standard for new-trial leave)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
- State v. McConnell, 170 Ohio App.3d 800 (2d Dist. 2007) (defendant entitled to hearing on leave where submitted documents facially support unavoidable delay)