State v. Hiler
2017 Ohio 7636
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Richard Lee Hiler was convicted by a jury (Jan. 2013) of two counts of felonious assault for stabbing Mark Sparks; the counts were merged and an 8-year term imposed. This court affirmed on direct appeal in 2014.
- In June 2016 Hiler filed a combined Crim.R. 33 motion for leave to file and a motion for new trial under Crim.R. 33(A)(2) (prosecutorial misconduct) and (A)(5) (trial error), asserting the State failed to disclose Sparks’ 2002 forgery conviction.
- Hiler did not file within the 14-day period of Crim.R. 33(B); he sought leave based on being “unavoidably prevented” from timely filing because he was incarcerated and only learned of the conviction in April–May 2016 after a friend obtained the record online.
- The trial court denied the motion as untimely, finding Hiler failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering publicly available records; the court also found no basis to hold an evidentiary hearing.
- This appeal challenges (1) the finding that Hiler was not unavoidably prevented from timely filing, and (2) the denial of an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hiler) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hiler was "unavoidably prevented" from timely filing a Crim.R. 33 motion | The public criminal record was readily discoverable; Hiler failed to prove unavoidable prevention by clear and convincing evidence | Hiler was incarcerated and could not obtain the record until a friend accessed it in 2016, so he could not have filed within 14 days | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion — Hiler failed to show unavoidable prevention; record was publicly available and his affidavit was insufficient |
| Whether the trial court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing on unavoidable-prevention claim | No — hearing not required when submitted materials do not facially establish unavoidable prevention | Yes — Hiler requested a hearing to prove his inability to discover the record earlier | Held: No hearing required; submitted materials (online record, discovery, brief affidavit) did not facially prove unavoidable prevention |
| Whether Hiler satisfied Crim.R. 33(C) / alleged prosecutorial misconduct for failing to disclose Sparks’ conviction | The motion lacked the required affidavit showing truth of prosecutorial-misconduct allegations; dismissal appropriate | Hiler argued prosecutor withheld impeaching conviction | Held: Even if arguable misconduct, Hiler failed to submit the affidavit required by Crim.R. 33(C); motion properly dismissed on that ground (concurring opinion) |
| Whether nondisclosure of Sparks’ forgery conviction would warrant a new trial (prejudice/Brady/Evid.R. 609 issues) | Any withheld conviction would not create a reasonable probability of a different result; admission at a new trial could be limited by Evid.R. 609(B) as stale | The forgery conviction bears on witness credibility and would have aided impeachment | Held: Court noted overwhelming evidence against Hiler and that the forgery was non-violent and now stale; no reasonable probability of a different verdict and admission at retrial might be barred under Evid.R. 609(B) |
Key Cases Cited
- Wogenstahl v. State, 970 N.E.2d 447 (Ohio 2004) (failure to disclose witness criminal record does not automatically warrant new trial; prejudice must be shown)
- Johnston v. State, 529 N.E.2d 898 (Ohio 1988) (Brady-type nondisclosure claims invoke a due-process reasonable-probability standard rather than ordinary Crim.R. 33 standards)
- Walden v. State, 483 N.E.2d 859 (Ohio Ct. App.) (definition of being "unavoidably prevented" — must show ignorance of ground and inability to learn it within the filing period through reasonable diligence)