State v. Johnson, 2023 Ohio 808

Anthony Johnson was convicted after a 2001 bench trial for multiple robberies/kidnappings relating to a September 15, 2000 parking-garage robbery and an October 9, 2000 court-reporting-school robbery; multiple victims identified Johnson in photo arrays, live lineups, and at trial.
Frederick (Fred) Norman later submitted multiple affidavits (2002–2018) confessing to one or both robberies; Norman was subsequently charged in related matters and pleaded guilty in separate proceedings.
Johnson sought DNA testing of a recovered windbreaker, hat, and hairs; this court (Johnson III) previously concluded DNA testing could be outcome-determinative but the physical evidence could not be located after exhaustive searches and litigation.
Johnson obtained leave to file a successive motion for new trial (Johnson IV) based on newly discovered evidence (Norman affidavits, an expert affidavit on eyewitness ID from Dr. Charles Goodsell, and documentary materials about missing biological evidence).
The trial court denied Johnson’s motion for a new trial without a hearing; this appeal challenged denial and the failure to hold an evidentiary hearing.
The appellate court affirmed: it held Johnson’s proffered evidence did not satisfy the Petro factors for newly discovered evidence and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief or a hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Norman’s postconviction affidavits constitute newly discovered evidence warranting a new trial	Affidavits are internally inconsistent, largely impeaching, and much of Norman’s supposed involvement was known or litigable earlier; do not show a strong probability of a different result	Norman’s confessions identify the true perpetrator and, coupled with missing DNA, would be outcome-determinative	Denied: affidavits fail Petro factors; do not disclose a strong probability of a different result
Whether expert eyewitness-identification affidavit (Goodsell) requires a new trial	Expert’s opinions rely on literature available pretrial; expert testimony would not likely have changed outcome	Expert shows substantial risk of misidentification that could have altered verdict	Denied: affidavit would not likely change result; not newly discovered or outcome-determinative
Whether a hearing on the motion for new trial was required	No hearing necessary; missing-evidence issue was already litigated and affidavits are facially inadequate	Hearing required to test credibility of Norman and expert testimony and to explore missing-evidence issues	Denied: hearings are discretionary; trial court did not abuse discretion in refusing a hearing

State v. Petro, 76 N.E.2d 370 (Ohio 1947) (articulates six-factor standard for new trial based on newly discovered evidence)
State v. Johnson, 14 N.E.3d 482 (8th Dist. 2014) (remanded for DNA testing as potentially outcome determinative)
State v. Johnson, 799 N.E.2d 650 (8th Dist. 2003) (affirming denial of a prior motion for new trial based on Norman affidavit)
State v. Perry, 226 N.E.2d 104 (Ohio 1967) (res judicata bars grounds that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
State v. Hackett, 172 N.E.3d 75 (Ohio 2020) (explains abuse-of-discretion review standard)