State v. Johnson, 2024 Ohio 134

Eric Johnson was convicted by a jury of attempted murder and related offenses in 2013, based primarily on victim James Keith's eyewitness identification.
Johnson challenged his conviction through a series of postconviction relief petitions, all of which were denied as untimely and/or successive.
In 2020, Johnson filed his third postconviction petition, relying on a newly-provided affidavit from Keith recanting his trial identification and claiming police pressure to testify against Johnson.
Johnson argued that the affidavit was newly discovered evidence and that he was unavoidably prevented from obtaining it before the deadline.
The trial court denied the petition without a hearing; the Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed, finding Johnson had not met statutory requirements for consideration of untimely, successive petitions.
The Ohio Supreme Court reviewed whether the recantation affidavit sufficed to overcome procedural bars and if Johnson had shown constitutional error necessitating relief.

Issue	Johnson's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether a recantation affidavit dated after the statutory deadline is sufficient by itself to show petitioner was unavoidably prevented from timely discovery	The affidavit’s date suffices; factual details can be explored at a hearing	More than a post-deadline affidavit date is required; petitioner must show specific facts explaining delay	Affidavit's date alone is insufficient; must show specific reasons why discovery was unavoidable
Whether Johnson demonstrated he would not have been convicted but for constitutional error at trial	Recanting testimony, police pressure, and alleged Brady violation amount to constitutional error	Only knowing use of false testimony by the state is constitutional error; perjury alone does not suffice	No constitutional error shown; state’s knowledge of perjury required for due process violation
Burden of proof on showing unavoidable prevention under R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(a)	State must disprove petitioner was unavoidably prevented or hearing should be held	Petitioner must affirmatively show unavoidable prevention with supporting facts	Petitioner has burden of proof; Johnson did not meet it
Requirement for hearing based on newly discovered recantation evidence	Petition with affidavit merits evidentiary hearing	Hearing only required if prima facie showing under statute is satisfied	Hearing not required; insufficient showing here

State v. Apanovitch, 155 Ohio St.3d 358 (2018) (trial courts lack jurisdiction to consider untimely/successive postconviction petitions unless statutory conditions met)
State v. Bethel, 167 Ohio St.3d 362 (2022) (petitioner can show 'unavoidably prevented' by proving Brady violation; burden remains on petitioner)
State v. Iacona, 93 Ohio St.3d 83 (2001) (due process violation requires state's knowing use of perjured testimony)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (state's knowing use of false testimony violates due process)