State v. Mango
2014 Ohio 2768
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant Jubrell Mango was tried by the bench and convicted of one count of felonious assault and domestic violence arising from an incident in which her teenage daughter was stabbed and injured; Mango was acquitted of a second felonious-assault count and resisting arrest.
- At trial the victim testified Mango attacked her with knives, damaged her phone, and forced her out into the cold; police responded and Mango was arrested the next day.
- About a month after trial Mango filed a Crim.R. 33 motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence: an affidavit from Mango’s sister claiming she was not present during the incident.
- The affidavit stated the sister had not seen Mango or the victim for years and denied any involvement in or witnessing of the confrontation; it did not state where the sister had been or offer to testify.
- The trial court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, finding the affidavit did not add materially different facts and was cumulative or merely impeaching given Mango’s own trial testimony.
- Mango appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by denying the new-trial motion without a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mango was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on her Crim.R. 33 motion for a new trial based on a newly discovered-witness affidavit | State: Trial court properly denied the motion; affidavit did not meet the standards for newly discovered evidence and was cumulative/impeaching | Mango: Affidavit from previously unavailable sister warranted a hearing because it supported unavoidable failure to discover and would affect the outcome | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; affidavit insufficient on its face to require a hearing — cumulative, impeaching, and lacking material detail/offered testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Matthews, 81 Ohio St.3d 375 (Ohio 1998) (bench/appeal standard: motion for new trial reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505 (Ohio 1947) (six-factor test for newly discovered evidence)
- State v. McConnell, 170 Ohio App.3d 800 (2d Dist. 2007) (defendant entitled to a hearing if supporting documents on their face show unavoidable prevention of timely discovery)