State v. Hawkins
2011 Ohio 5645
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Hawkins convicted in 1990 on two counts of aggravated robbery and four counts of aggravated murder, receiving death sentences for the murders.
- He pursued appeals in state courts and a federal habeas corpus petition; the federal district court granted a conditional writ on ineffective assistance claim, later limited by the Sixth Circuit.
- In May 2011 Hawkins moved for leave to file a motion for a new trial with a proposed new-trial motion based on a forensic pathologist’s 2011 report.
- The motion argued newly discovered evidence undermining the state’s theory that the victims were killed contemporaneously at the same location.
- Crim.R. 33(A)(6) allows a new-trial motion for newly discovered evidence if filed within 120 days or timely extended for unavoidable prevention, Crim.R. 33(B).
- The trial court denied leave; Hawkins appeals challenging that denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly denied leave to file a new-trial motion based on newly discovered evidence. | Hawkins contends he was unavoidably prevented from timely discovering the evidence. | State argues no clear and convincing proof of unavoidable prevention. | Denied leave; denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Walden, 19 Ohio App.3d 141 (Ohio App. 1984) (unavoidable prevention standard for late Crim.R. 33 filings)
- State v. Mathis, 134 Ohio App.3d 77 (Ohio App. 1999) (clear and convincing evidence required for unavoidable prevention)
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio Supreme Court 1990) (review of trial court’s decision on a Crim.R. 33 motion)
- State v. Davis, (Ohio Supreme Court) 2011-Ohio-5028 (Ohio 2011) (Crim.R. 33(A)(6) newly discovered evidence; death-penalty context; jurisdictional issue clarified)