2023 Ohio 4794
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Joseph McAlpin was convicted of aggravated murder in connection with a double homicide during a robbery and sentenced to death in 2019; the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence.
- At trial, evidence included coconspirator testimony, forensic DNA, cell phone data, surveillance footage, and Google location data linking McAlpin to the scene.
- After trial, McAlpin filed two motions for a new trial, arguing newly discovered and exculpatory Google location data was not disclosed by the State.
- McAlpin submitted digital expert testimony that Google's full location records were not produced in discovery, but were available via McAlpin’s account through Google Takeout.
- The trial court denied McAlpin’s motion for new trial without a hearing, and McAlpin appealed, claiming he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the new evidence.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying leave to file a new trial motion and not holding an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | McAlpin’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by ruling on the merits of the new trial motion before ruling on the motion for leave to file it | The court improperly decided the new trial motion before considering procedural leave, thereby violating due process | The trial court only denied the untimely new trial motion, not the procedural leave motion | Under the circumstances, the denial addressed both motions; not error to construe it as such |
| Whether McAlpin was unavoidably prevented from timely discovering the Google location data | McAlpin had no access to Google's summary/location files until after trial, as State did not produce them | Evidence was always available to McAlpin through his own account or counsel/expert, not suppressed by State | McAlpin failed to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the data |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying leave to file and failing to hold a hearing | Court should have granted leave/held hearing based on new evidence | Leave was unwarranted; hearing not required as motion did not make threshold showing | No abuse of discretion; denial without hearing affirmed |
| Whether relief/remand was necessary due to procedural or substantive errors | Denial without proper consideration merits reversal/remand | No error; process proper; no grounds for new trial | Affirmed; judgment for State |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Davis, 131 Ohio St.3d 1 (appellate jurisdiction to review denial of a motion for new trial in death penalty context)
- State v. Bethel, 167 Ohio St.3d 362 ("unavoidably prevented" standard for new trial motions)
- State v. Hatton, 169 Ohio St.3d 446 (trial court cannot consider merits of new trial motion until ruling on leave; standard for leave under Crim.R. 33)
- State v. McAlpin, 169 Ohio St.3d 279 (direct appeal decision affirming McAlpin's conviction and sentence)