2022 Ohio 2159
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background:
- Angelo Howard was tried and convicted for 2002 murders of Gino Booker and Tim Canady (one murder conviction later reversed as to a different victim); sentenced to lengthy prison terms and is serving 108 years to life.
- At trial accomplice testimony (Carlos and Eugene Jackson) implicated Howard as the shooter for Booker and Canady; no physical evidence at trial directly tied Howard to Booker’s murder.
- In postconviction work, the Ohio Innocence Project obtained police records (photographic six‑pack lineup notes, fingerprint card and latent‑print results, and an evidence‑examination worksheet) showing: latent prints from the Booker scene matched Michael Thompson; a quality print was lifted from the murder‑weapon magazine; and witness Britney Kelley, after viewing a lineup that included Howard’s photo, identified another person ("Jasper/Jabber") as the shooter.
- Much of the physical evidence later was returned to police and then ordered destroyed by municipal/common‑pleas entries; the state reported the requested items could not be located for DNA testing.
- Howard filed multiple Crim.R. 33(B) motions for leave to file delayed new‑trial motions (2014, 2019, 2020), alleging newly discovered evidence, Brady suppression, prosecutorial misconduct, and spoliation; the trial court denied leave without holding an evidentiary hearing and after ruling on the merits.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding the trial court erred by deciding the merits before determining whether Howard was "unavoidably prevented" from timely discovering the evidence and by denying leave without a hearing where suppression/unavoidable prevention may be shown.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Howard) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly denied Crim.R. 33(B) leave by deciding merits without first finding unavoidable prevention | Court may reject the new‑trial motion on the merits and therefore deny leave | Leave may be granted only after the court finds the movant was "unavoidably prevented" from timely discovering the ground; merits not before court until leave granted | Reversed — court erred; must first decide unavoidable‑prevention before ruling on merits of a delayed new‑trial motion |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on Howard’s Crim.R. 33(B) motions alleging Brady suppression and newly discovered evidence | No hearing needed because the court found the new‑trial claims meritless and evidence was not suppressed | Hearing required when submitted evidence on its face demonstrates unavoidable prevention or suppression (affidavits, documents showing prints, lineup ID, destroyed evidence) | Reversed — hearing required because the record contains evidence suggesting suppression/unavoidable prevention |
| Whether destruction/non‑production of forensic evidence and the newly produced records constitute suppression satisfying the "unavoidably prevented" standard under current Ohio law | The state contends the evidence was available or not suppressed at trial | Under State v. Bethel, suppression by the prosecution satisfies the unavoidable‑prevention requirement for a delayed new‑trial motion without requiring proof of diligence | Court must apply Bethel and determine on remand whether the prosecution suppressed evidence; if so, the unavoidable‑prevention standard is met |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (suppression of material exculpatory evidence by prosecution violates due process)
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (1990) (appellate review standard where clear‑and‑convincing proof is required)
- State v. Johnston, 39 Ohio St.3d 48 (1988) (discussing Brady and prosecutorial duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- State v. Bethel, 2022-Ohio-783 (Ohio Supreme Court) (a Brady claimant satisfies the Crim.R. 33(B) "unavoidably prevented" requirement by establishing the prosecution suppressed the evidence)