2018 Ohio 665
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Charles Jeko was convicted by a jury of one count of felonious assault for an incident on July 26, 2016; victim suffered head and lip injuries that required sutures/glue.
- At trial the victim did not testify; eyewitness testified he saw Jeko punch the victim, knocking her out; police and detective testified they did not smell Mace or observe signs consistent with the victim spraying Mace.
- Jeko’s defense at trial was that the victim sprayed him with Mace, provoking him to strike her; he admitted striking her but described it as a reaction to being sprayed.
- After conviction, Jeko filed a Crim.R. 33 motion asserting newly discovered evidence and Brady violations: (1) a courtroom video showing the victim briefly appeared and was escorted out during closing argument; (2) the victim’s affidavit recanting her prior statement and saying she pointed a can of Mace at Jeko; (3) an actual can of Mace the victim said she gave to defense counsel.
- The trial court granted a new trial; the State appealed. The court of appeals reviewed whether the court abused its discretion in granting a new trial under Crim.R. 33(A)(6).
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Jeko's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether victim’s brief courtroom appearance is newly discovered evidence warranting a new trial | Appearance is not evidence and does not justify a new trial | Appearance shows prosecutorial misconduct/suppressed evidence | Court: Not evidence; cannot justify a new trial |
| Whether victim’s affidavit and the can of Mace qualify as newly discovered evidence under Crim.R. 33(A)(6) | The affidavit and Mace merely contradict or impeach trial evidence and are not newly discovered; defense could have sought them before trial | Affidavit and Mace are new, exculpatory evidence that would likely change the verdict | Court: They are not newly discovered; they merely contradict prior evidence and defense failed to show due diligence was impossible; trial court abused its discretion in granting new trial |
| Whether the material establishes a Brady violation requiring reversal | State argues no Brady violation; trial court rejected misconduct/Brady claim (not appealed) | Jeko claimed evidence was suppressed by prosecution in violation of Brady | Court did not reinstate Brady ruling; main review limited to newly discovered evidence, found no Brady relief here |
| Standard of review for new-trial motion | Abuse of discretion applies; requires strict Petro factors | Jeko argued Petro factors are met because new evidence is material and would likely change result | Court applied Petro and concluded criteria not met; reversed grant of new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense)
- State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505 (1947) (six-factor test for newly discovered evidence warranting a new trial)
- State v. Matthews, 81 Ohio St.3d 375 (1998) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing new-trial rulings)
- State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (1980) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- State v. Seiber, 56 Ohio St.3d 4 (1990) (defendant must show with due diligence evidence could not have been discovered before trial)