State v. Hill
2020 Ohio 102
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Hill was indicted for the June 2, 2011 shooting death of Tyrone Spence, tried in April 2012; Damon Taylor testified for the state implicating Hill; Hill was convicted of aggravated murder and later the conviction was reduced to murder on appeal and he was resentenced to 18 years to life.
- In 2014 Hill (pro se) submitted an affidavit from Myles McCollum claiming he saw Hill flee the scene unarmed; the trial court denied leave to file a delayed new-trial motion and this court affirmed in 2015.
- In 2018 (with counsel) Hill filed a motion for leave to file a delayed motion for new trial based on three new affidavits: (1) Taylor (recanting his trial testimony), (2) Christian Potts (saying an unknown man shot Spence and Hill fled unarmed), and (3) a second McCollum affidavit (similar to the 2014 statement).
- The trial court denied Hill’s 2018 motion for leave without a hearing; Hill appealed raising four assignments of error: unavoidable prevention, entitlement to a new trial on newly discovered evidence, Brady violation, and denial of a hearing.
- The appellate court affirmed: it found Hill failed to show he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the new evidence or that he filed within a reasonable time; McCollum’s claims were barred by res judicata; a hearing was discretionary.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Hill's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hill was "unavoidably prevented" from discovering the proffered new evidence to obtain leave to file a delayed Crim.R.33 motion | The affidavits were discoverable earlier, some are unsworn/credible, and Hill delayed after receipt; McCollum already known to Hill | Affidavits (Taylor, Potts, McCollum) are newly discovered, Brady violation prevented earlier discovery | Denied: Hill failed to show unavoidable prevention or reasonable filing delay; McCollum claims barred by res judicata |
| Whether the court erred in refusing to grant a new trial on grounds of newly discovered evidence | Merits not reached because leave to file was properly denied | The cumulative affidavits require a new trial | Overruled: procedural prerequisite (leave) not met; merits not considered |
| Whether McCollum affidavits establish a Brady violation warranting relief | Brady claim was or could have been raised earlier and is barred by res judicata; Hill knew/discoverable earlier | McCollum’s affidavits (and cumulative evidence) show suppressed/exculpatory evidence undermining conviction | Denied: barred by res judicata and Hill did not show unavoidable prevention |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying a hearing on the motion for leave | Hearing is discretionary; not required when movant fails to show unavoidable prevention or timeliness | Crim.R.33 requires a hearing on motions based on newly discovered evidence | Denied: hearing discretionary; no abuse of discretion in refusing one here |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hill, 136 Ohio St.3d 1450, 991 N.E.2d 257 (Ohio 2013) (Ohio Supreme Court disposition referenced in appellate history)
- State v. Phillips, 95 N.E.3d 1017 (Ohio App. 2017) (discusses standards for leave to file delayed Crim.R.33 motions and hearing discretion)
- Coulson v. Coulson, 5 Ohio St.3d 12, 448 N.E.2d 809 (Ohio 1983) (principle that res judicata bars successive motions raising issues that were or could have been raised earlier)