State v. Hedges
2018 Ohio 4956
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In 2015 a jury convicted Michael E. Hedges of illegal manufacture of drugs, possession/assembly of chemicals for manufacture, having weapons while under disability, and aggravated possession of drugs.
- On direct appeal Hedges challenged, among other things, admission of a deputy’s testimony recounting out-of-court statements by witness Lindsay Burkhart; the conviction was affirmed, with the court noting overwhelming evidence of guilt.
- In May 2017 Hedges filed a Crim.R. 33(A)(6) motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence: an affidavit and later testimony from Burkhart recanting the statements the deputy attributed to her at trial.
- At the new-trial hearing Burkhart admitted she previously lied to get released from jail and said she had not implicated Hedges in meth manufacture; she also testified she only stayed one night at the residence and that Hedges was the primary occupant.
- The trial court denied the motion, finding Burkhart’s proffered testimony would merely impeach/detract from the deputy’s testimony and, given the overwhelming trial evidence tying Hedges to the residence and manufacturing materials, would not probably change the verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a Crim.R.33(A)(6) motion for a new trial based on Burkhart’s recantation | The new testimony only impeaches prior evidence and, in light of overwhelming proof linking Hedges to the manufacturing materials and residence, would not likely change the verdict | Burkhart would testify she never implicated Hedges; her testimony is newly discovered and noncumulative and would leave the State without proof of Hedges’ involvement, so a new trial would likely change the result | Affirmed. No abuse of discretion: the recantation was impeaching, credibility was suspect, and it did not create a strong probability of a different outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181 (2002) (new-trial-on-new-evidence standard and discretion of trial court)
- State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505 (1947) (factors for granting new trial for newly discovered evidence)
- State v. Seiber, 56 Ohio St.3d 4 (1990) (application of Petro factors)
- Taylor v. Ross, 150 Ohio St. 448 (1948) (courts should subject new-trial applications to closest scrutiny)