State v. Hatton, 205 N.E.3d 513

Background

Martin L. Hatton was convicted in 1997 of aggravated burglary, kidnapping, rape, felonious assault, and theft and is serving an aggregate 39-year sentence. He has consistently maintained his innocence and pursued multiple postconviction challenges.
At trial the state’s DNA analyst, Raman Tejwani, characterized the male fractions from vaginal swabs and underwear as "inconclusive"; the lab report did not disclose a faint B allele at marker D7S8. Defense expert Larry Dehus testified at trial that the B allele could not have come from Hatton, Dunn, or the victim and thus indicated another male contributor.
In 1998 Tejwani authored a memo to the Pickaway County prosecutor (while Hatton’s direct appeal and first postconviction petition were pending) acknowledging that the faint B allele was not observed in the known blood samples and that the mixed male DNA included a contributor other than Hatton or Ricky Dunn. The prosecutor did not disclose that memo to defense counsel, and Hatton first obtained it via public-records request in 2018.
In 2019 Hatton sought leave to file an untimely motion for a new trial and filed a successive postconviction petition, both based primarily on the newly discovered Tejwani memo; the trial court denied both without a hearing as barred by res judicata and on the merits, and the Fourth District affirmed.
The Ohio Supreme Court reversed: it held that res judicata did not bar Hatton’s claims, that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to apply Crim.R. 33(B)’s preliminary “unavoidably prevented” inquiry before reaching merits, and it remanded with instructions to grant leave to file a new-trial motion, hold an evidentiary hearing on that motion, and determine whether the trial court has jurisdiction under R.C. 2953.23(A)(1) to consider the successive postconviction petition.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res judicata bars claims based on the Tejwani memo	Memo is newly discovered and contains state-expert admission that a male other than Hatton/Dunn contributed DNA; therefore it could not have been litigated earlier	The B allele and its significance were known/available and earlier challenges covered these arguments	Res judicata does not bar Hatton; lower courts abused discretion—memo contains materially new admission by state’s expert
Whether Hatton satisfied Crim.R. 33(B)’s "unavoidably prevented" standard to get leave to file an untimely new-trial motion	Could not have discovered the 1998 memo within 120 days because it was written after trial and was suppressed by the prosecution	State contended it had no duty to disclose (but did not dispute unavoidable prevention)	Hatton met the unavoidable-prevention showing; trial court erred by skipping the Crim.R. 33(B) threshold analysis and abused its discretion in denying leave
Whether an evidentiary hearing on the new-trial motion was required	The memo, viewed with the record, creates a substantial hole in the state’s two-perpetrator theory and could likely change the outcome	DNA evidence was not "essential" and the jury convicted on other evidence	Hatton is entitled to an evidentiary hearing; the court must assess whether the memo meets Petro’s merits standard at that hearing
Whether the trial court has jurisdiction under R.C. 2953.23(A)(1) to hear an untimely/successive postconviction petition	Hatton satisfied the "unavoidably prevented" prong and must be allowed to show that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable finder of fact would convict	Lower courts treated the memo as not new and applied res judicata instead of resolving jurisdiction	The Supreme Court vacated dismissal and remanded for the trial court to decide the R.C. 2953.23(A)(1) jurisdictional question (avoid res judicata mischaracterizations)

Key Cases Cited

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (establishes prosecution’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93, 671 N.E.2d 233 (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505, 76 N.E.2d 370 (standards for granting a new trial on newly discovered evidence)
State v. LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181, 767 N.E.2d 166 (articulates Petro-related analysis for new-trial motions)
State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 714 N.E.2d 905 (defendant entitled to hearing when motion alleges substantive grounds for relief)
State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158, 679 N.E.2d 1131 (res judicata applies to postconviction petitions)
State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377, 860 N.E.2d 77 (abuse-of-discretion standard for postconviction relief and hearings)
State v. Apanovitch, 155 Ohio St.3d 358, 121 N.E.3d 351 (jurisdictional limits of R.C. 2953.23)
State v. Bethel, 167 Ohio St.3d 362, 192 N.E.3d 470 (Crim.R. 33(B) two-step process and limits on merits review when deciding leave to file)