State v. Keith
2017 Ohio 5488
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 1994 Kevin Keith was convicted of three counts of aggravated murder and related offenses; juries recommended death sentences later reduced to life without parole after commutation.
- At trial forensic analyst G. Michelle Yezzo testified (via deposition) about a license-plate impression and tire-tread similarity linking a vehicle to Keith; cross-examination revealed limits to her conclusions and one defense-favorable finding (footprints did not match Keith’s shoes).
- In 2016 Keith obtained portions of Yezzo’s BCI personnel file that contained coworker complaints and comments suggesting instability and questionable reliability; he argued this was undisclosed impeachment material.
- Keith moved for leave to file a delayed motion for new trial (Crim.R. 33(B)) and a successor post-conviction petition, asserting Brady suppression and that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the personnel file earlier.
- The trial court denied leave, finding Keith failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he was unavoidably prevented from obtaining the file (could have sought it by public records request or explored issues through cross-examination); it also held any personnel-file material would not have changed the overwhelmingly supportive eyewitness and physical evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion denying leave to file delayed new-trial motion under Crim.R. 33(B) (unavoidable prevention) | State: Keith failed to show by clear and convincing evidence he was unavoidably prevented from discovering Yezzo’s personnel file; file was obtainable by public-records request and cross-examination | Keith: He did not know of personnel-file contents until 2016; prior public-records attempts (2009) showed difficulty obtaining such records, so he was unavoidably prevented | No abuse of discretion — Keith failed to prove unavoidable prevention; denial affirmed |
| Whether nondisclosure of Yezzo’s personnel file violated Brady | Keith: File contained impeachment material favorable to defense; its suppression prejudiced outcome because Yezzo was a critical State witness | State: Even if suppressed, the personnel-file statements (coworker complaints) were likely inadmissible hearsay/character evidence and would not have altered outcome given strong eyewitness and physical evidence | No Brady prejudice — even assuming suppression, no reasonable possibility the file would have changed the verdict |
| Whether striking/dismissing Keith’s successor post-conviction petition and new-trial motion was error | Keith: Trial court improperly struck filings and thereby prejudiced his collateral relief | State: Trial court only denied leave to file the new-trial motion; no final ruling on successor petition to appeal; any strike of the actual motion was procedural/cured by denial of leave | No reversible error / moot or unripe — court’s denial of leave dispositive; successor petition not finally adjudicated |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (establishes State duty to disclose favorable, material evidence to the defense)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (sets elements for Brady claim: suppression, favorability, and prejudice)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (defines "clear and convincing" standard)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (defines abuse-of-discretion standard)
- State v. Keith, 79 Ohio St.3d 514 (Ohio Supreme Court opinion affirming convictions and sentences; factual background relied upon)