2019 Ohio 365
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- In 1991 Genesis Hill was convicted of aggravated burglary, kidnapping, and two counts of aggravated murder for the death of his six‑month‑old daughter, and sentenced to death; convictions affirmed on direct appeal.
- The State’s case was largely circumstantial: Hill was seen entering the building where the child slept, his thumbprint was on the hall lightbulb, the child’s body was found behind his garage wrapped with items connected to his residence, and witnesses testified to hostile statements attributed to Hill.
- Important trial witness Teresa (Domika’s mother, “Dudley”) was a key State witness; the defense’s theory centered on impeaching Dudley and suggesting accidental death or alternative perpetrators.
- Years later Hill discovered a withheld police preliminary investigation report and obtained Dudley’s grand‑jury testimony; he also procured affidavits from two neighbors (Davenport and Daniels) and a 2016 affidavit from the original autopsy physician (Dr. Martin) that modified her original conclusion about manner of death.
- Hill unsuccessfully pursued federal habeas relief; the Sixth Circuit reversed a district‑court grant of relief on timeliness grounds and split on the Brady materiality issue. Hill then obtained leave in state court to file a Crim.R. 33 new‑trial motion based on Brady, newly discovered evidence, actual innocence, and ineffective assistance.
- The state trial court denied the Crim.R. 33 motion without an evidentiary hearing; Hill appealed and the court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding an evidentiary hearing was required on the Brady and actual‑innocence claims but not on the ineffective‑assistance claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hill) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata/issue preclusion bars Hill’s Brady/new‑trial claims because of the federal habeas ruling | Sixth Circuit decision precludes relitigation | Sixth Circuit denied relief on timeliness, not merits; two judges thought Brady would have succeeded, so preclusion does not apply | Res judicata inapplicable; state court may consider Brady/new‑trial claims on merits |
| Whether Hill’s Crim.R. 33 claims were timely and whether leave was properly granted | Claims time‑barred under Crim.R. 33(B) | Leave properly granted; trial court implicitly found unavoidable delay | State failed to cross‑appeal interlocutory leave; trial court’s grant of leave is binding here and timeliness not reviewed on appeal |
| Whether withheld police report and other evidence constituted Brady material requiring an evidentiary hearing | Withheld materials were of marginal significance; no reasonable likelihood would have affected jury | Withheld police report contained exculpatory/impeaching information about Dudley that could have affected the verdict; combined with new affidavits shows materiality | Court abused discretion by denying evidentiary hearing on Brady claim; police report was withheld and could have reasonably affected jury; hearing required |
| Whether affidavits (Davenport, Daniels, Dr. Martin) and newly discovered evidence warrant a new trial (Crim.R. 33(A)(6)) | Evidence insufficient or cumulative; no showing of prejudice | Affidavits and Dr. Martin’s revised opinion materially undercut key evidence of purposefulness and Dudley’s credibility; evidence is newly discovered, material, and likely prejudicial | Court abused discretion by denying hearing on actual‑innocence/newly discovered‑evidence claim; hearing required |
| Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to present Davenport/Daniels | State contends counsel’s performance reasonable | Hill argues counsel would have presented them if aware | Trial court did not abuse discretion denying relief on ineffective‑assistance claim because affidavits don’t show counsel knew of witnesses; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (Brady rule on suppression of favorable evidence)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (impeachment evidence and prosecutors’ duty)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (cumulative evaluation of suppressed evidence)
- Wearry v. Cain, 565 U.S. 73 (materiality: any reasonable likelihood of affecting jury)
- Smith v. Cain, 565 U.S. 73 (standard for materiality of undisclosed evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two‑prong test)
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (affidavit‑credibility factors; when hearing required)
- State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505 (standard for newly discovered evidence new trial)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (applying Strickland in Ohio)
- State v. Hill, 75 Ohio St.3d 195 (Ohio Supreme Court direct appeal affirming conviction)
- Hill v. Mitchell, 842 F.3d 910 (6th Cir.) (federal habeas decision reversing district court on timeliness and split on Brady materiality)