State v. Hatton
2021 Ohio 1416
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- In 1997 Martin L. Hatton was tried and convicted (rape, burglary, kidnapping, felonious assault, theft) and given an aggregate 39‑year sentence; co‑defendant Ricky Dunn implicated Hatton at the scene.
- State DNA testing produced mixed semen samples; lab report called the male fractions "inconclusive," but bench notes showed a faint "B" allele at locus D7S8 in the male fraction that did not match Hatton (AA) or Dunn (AA).
- At trial the state DNA analyst (Raman Tejwani) testified the results were inconclusive; defense expert argued the bench notes suggested a third contributor and that Hatton could be excluded.
- Hatton filed multiple post‑conviction motions over the years; in 2018 he obtained a June 22, 1998 memo from Tejwani (sent to the prosecutor) that recounted a 1998 conversation about the faint D7S8 B type and argued the memo undermined Tejwani’s trial testimony.
- In 2019 Hatton moved for leave to file a delayed motion for new trial and filed a successive petition for post‑conviction relief asserting (1) newly discovered evidence (the memo) and (2) a Brady violation for nondisclosure of the B allele; the trial court denied both as barred by res judicata and because the memo was not materially new.
- The Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed: the memo was cumulative of information available earlier, Hatton was not unavoidably prevented from discovery, res judicata barred relief, and no new Brady materiality was shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hatton) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to grant leave to file a delayed Crim.R. 33(A)(6) motion for new trial based on Tejwani memo | Memo is newly discovered, contradicts Tejwani’s trial testimony and shows Hatton excluded as contributor (B allele absent in Hatton) | Memo information was available or knowable earlier; motion untimely; res judicata bars relitigation | Denied; memo cumulative/available earlier; res judicata applies; no abuse of discretion in denial |
| Whether successive petition for post‑conviction relief under R.C. 2953.21/2953.23 should be allowed based on the memo and alleged actual innocence | Memo + recantation/other materials establish actual innocence and meet statutory exceptions to file successive petition | Petition is successive and barred by R.C. limitations and res judicata; memo contains no new facts that were unavailable earlier | Denied; barred by res judicata and petitioner failed to show previously unavailable facts or clear and convincing proof of actual innocence |
| Whether the prosecutor violated Brady by failing to disclose the B allele / exculpatory DNA information | Prosecutor suppressed material exculpatory evidence (B allele) that would have shown Hatton could not be the contributor | Evidence (including bench notes and expert testimony about the B allele) was available to defense and presented at trial; no new Brady material | Denied; claim previously litigated and the asserted evidence was not newly undisclosed or materially exculpatory under Brady |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution must disclose materially exculpatory evidence)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (res judicata bars issues raised or that could have been raised earlier)
- State v. Murnahan, 63 Ohio St.3d 60 (courts may decline res judicata in unjust circumstances; but standard reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Brown, 115 Ohio St.3d 55 (Brady framework and materiality requirement)
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (abuse of discretion requires absence of a sound reasoning process)
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (post‑conviction petitioners are not entitled to an evidentiary hearing as of right)