2019 Ohio 2647
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Johnny Jordan was convicted in 1996 of rape, felonious sexual penetration, and felonious assault based primarily on testimony from his children (Mary, Lorraine, Nathaniel). He was sentenced to an indefinite term of 15 to 80 years.
- In 2015–2016 Jordan sought post-conviction relief: affidavits from his children claimed they had been coached/coerced by their grandmother (Lorrine Saunders) and recanted trial testimony; Mary wrote a letter and submitted affidavits stating she lied as a child.
- Jordan moved for leave to file a delayed Crim.R. 33(B) motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence (the recantations); the trial court granted leave but held an evidentiary hearing.
- At the evidentiary hearing, witnesses included the recanting children, the grandmother (Lorrine), therapists, and the children’s services caseworker; the trial court found Lorrine, the caseworker, and some trial-era records credible and found the recantations not credible.
- The trial court denied the new-trial motion, concluding the recantations were uncorroborated, inconsistent with the trial record, contradicted earlier reports and conduct, and potentially motivated by litigation/financial gain. Jordan appealed, arguing the court failed to consider the full record and did not properly assess whether the new evidence would probably change the verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court considered the entire record in denying the new-trial motion | Jordan: court relied on prior summary and did not adequately consider inconsistencies favoring recantation | State: judge who denied motion also presided at trial and reviewed record/transcript; trial court did reference trial evidence | Affirmed — court adequately considered the record (judge presided at trial; referenced transcript and record) |
| Whether the recantations created a strong probability the verdict would change | Jordan: recantations (new affidavits/testimony) are newly discovered and would likely change outcome | State: recantations viewed with suspicion; some evidence of prior knowledge and inconsistent/uncorroborated recantations | Affirmed — court found recantations not credible, so did not reach probability prong |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (rule that Crim.R. 33(B) motions are reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse-of-discretion standard defined)
- State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505 (test for granting new trial on newly discovered evidence)
- Toledo v. Easterling, 26 Ohio App.3d 59 (two-step analysis for recanted testimony: credibility then materiality)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (trial-court credibility determinations accorded deference)
- State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 (trial court best positioned to assess witness demeanor and credibility)
- Antill v. State, 176 Ohio St. 61 (trial court may believe all, part, or none of a witness's testimony)