2018 Ohio 5274
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Michael Hazel was convicted in 2011 of two counts of domestic violence; jury found he knew the victim (M.S.) was pregnant and that Hazel had prior convictions (2003 aggravated burglary involving a family/household member and a 2009 domestic violence conviction), leading to felony-third sentences of five years on each count, served consecutively.
- Hazel previously pled guilty in 2003 to aggravated burglary; an unrelated 2004 paternity DNA test later excluded him as the father of H.K.’s child.
- Hazel has litigated multiple challenges to his 2011 conviction (direct appeal, postconviction petition, federal habeas); prior appeals established that Hazel knew of the 2004 DNA result by 2004.
- In March 2018 Hazel filed a motion to compel LabCorp to produce documents showing the date and result of the DNA test concerning H.K.’s child, asserting the results were exculpatory under Brady and material to the validity of the 2003 conviction that enhanced his 2011 sentence.
- The trial court denied the motion to compel as the case was closed and discovery time had expired; Hazel appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by denying the motion without an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Hazel’s motion to compel production of DNA test documents | The State argued the case was closed, there was no pending proceeding or basis for discovery, and Hazel’s pleading functioned as a successive postconviction petition for which discovery is not available | Hazel argued the DNA results were Brady material/exculpatory and the court should compel production and hold an evidentiary hearing | Court held no abuse of discretion: case closed, no right to discovery in non-capital postconviction matters, and no need for hearing |
| Whether nondisclosure of the 2004 DNA results violated Brady | Implicitly: State had no duty because it did not possess or know of the DNA results at trial | Hazel contended the State’s failure to disclose the DNA results deprived him of exculpatory material under Brady | Held no Brady violation: no evidence State possessed or knew of the DNA testing/results at trial |
| Whether the DNA results were material to guilt/punishment (i.e., would have undermined the 2003 conviction used for enhancement) | State argued materiality lacking because the statute required only that the prior conviction involved a family/household member (putative father sufficed) and Hazel’s 2003 plea waived challenge to underlying facts | Hazel argued exclusion by DNA would undermine the characterization of the 2003 conviction as involving a family/household member and thus the enhancement | Held evidence not material: State needed proof only of a prior conviction involving a family/household member (putative father status sufficed), and the 2003 plea foreclosed requiring proof of biological paternity |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (government must disclose favorable, material evidence to the accused)
- Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987) (discussion of Brady and standards for disclosure)
- United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976) (materiality standard for nondisclosed evidence)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (standard for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Johnston, 39 Ohio St.3d 48 (1988) (definition of materiality under Brady; reasonable probability standard)