State v. Hough, 2013 Ohio 1543

Indicted in 2007 on three counts of aggravated murder with mass-murder and firearm specifications and two counts of attempted murder; five victims involved (three dead, two injured).
Trial in 2008 resulted in guilty verdicts on all charges; jury recommended life without parole after mitigation phase; sentencing in 2008 imposed consecutive life terms plus others.
Hough appealed previously and this is consolidated appeal challenging (1) trial judge bias, (2) denial of a Crim.R. 33 motion for a new trial, and (3) failure to merge allied offenses for sentencing.
During postconviction proceedings, Judge Shirley Saffold presided; online comments from her personal email surfaced, prompting an affidavit of disqualification and later reassignment to Judge Carolyn Friedland.
The Ohio Supreme Court later disqualified Judge Saffold from further postconviction proceedings; Hough then sought a new trial and a sentence-correction, which the trial court denied; this court affirms those denials.
The issues focus on due process and judicial-bias claims, the Crim.R. 33 standard for newly discovered evidence, and res judicata as to sentence-merger.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was due process violation from judicial bias.	Hough argues Saffold’s bias tainted the trial.	State argues no fundamental unfairness; bias not shown by the record.	No reversible due process bias; no fundamental unfairness proved.
Whether the trial court abused Crim.R. 33 by denying a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.	Hough contends online comment evidences bias affecting outcome.	State contends evidence not of substantial impact and timing precluded new trial.	No abuse; evidence did not likely change result and was outside the 120-day window without leave.
Whether the sentences should have merged as allied offenses or were barred by res judicata.	Hough sought merger of aggravated murder and attempted murder counts.	State argues res judicata bars postconviction challenge; merger not properly raised earlier.	Res judicata bars the merger challenge; no error in denial.

State v. Dean, 127 Ohio St.3d 140 (2010-Ohio-5070) (bias requiring reversal under due process standard)
State v. LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181 (2002-Ohio-2128) (impartiality and due-process requirements for trial)
Pratt v. Weygandt, 164 Ohio St. 463 (1956) (definition of judicial bias and disqualification standards)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (extrajudicial sources may show bias; excessive favoritism can undermine fairness)