State v. Hatton
2014 Ohio 3601
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- In 1997 a 17-year-old was raped; Ricky Dunn was captured fleeing and at trial implicated Martin Hatton as a participant. Police observed Dunn repeatedly saying he had been with "Marty/Marty Hatton."
- A jury convicted Hatton of aggravated burglary, felonious assault, rape, and theft; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal and multiple post-conviction proceedings followed.
- In 2013 Hatton filed a Crim.R. 33(A)(6) motion for a new trial based on a recantation affidavit from Dunn claiming he perjured himself, that Hatton was not involved, and that another man (Jeff Massie) took them to the residence.
- The trial court denied the new-trial motion without an evidentiary hearing, finding Dunn’s recantation not credible and noting the judge had presided at the original trial and observed testimonial demeanor.
- Hatton appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by not holding an evidentiary hearing to assess the recantation’s credibility. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a Crim.R. 33(A)(6) new-trial motion based on a co-defendant's recantation without holding an evidentiary hearing | State: The court reasonably discredited the recantation, relied on the trial judge’s firsthand observations, and properly applied Crim.R. 33 standards; no hearing required | Hatton: Dunn’s recantation is newly discovered material evidence that could probably change the verdict and thus warranted an evidentiary hearing to assess credibility | The appellate court held no abuse of discretion: the trial judge, having presided at trial and Dunn’s trial, could reasonably reject the recantation on credibility grounds and deny a hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Ross, 150 Ohio St. 448 (1948) (articulates strict scrutiny for new-trial motions based on newly discovered evidence and lists factors warranting a new trial)
- State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505 (1947) (establishes the multi-factor test for newly discovered evidence: probability of changing result, discovery after trial, due diligence, materiality, not cumulative, not mere impeachment)
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (1999) (provides factors a court may use to assess affidavit credibility in postconviction proceedings without an evidentiary hearing)
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (1990) (abuse-of-discretion standard requires a sound reasoning process)