State v. McFeeture
2020 Ohio 801
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- In 2013 a jury convicted Holly McFeeture of aggravated murder and contaminating a substance for the 2006 death of her fiancé; the State alleged she poisoned him with antifreeze in iced tea; defense argued suicide.
- Jamison Kennedy testified that McFeeture confessed to him; he had dated her, their relationship ended badly, and he later was convicted for assaulting police officers.
- McFeeture moved for a new trial alleging Brady nondisclosure about Kennedy’s status as an informant; the trial court denied the motion and this court affirmed on direct appeal, finding the medical examiner’s testimony was central and any undisclosed evidence about Kennedy would have been cumulative.
- In 2014 McFeeture filed a postconviction petition attaching two letters from inmates (Cline and Newsome) claiming Kennedy lied and called him a "snitch;" she argued this was newly discovered evidence showing Brady/Napue and requested an evidentiary hearing.
- The trial court denied the petition (2019), finding the letters were not shown to have been in the State’s possession (so not Brady), lacked credibility and materiality, and that the informant-status claim was barred by res judicata based on the prior appellate decision.
- The Eighth District affirmed, holding McFeeture failed to present credible operative facts to warrant a hearing and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State violated Brady by failing to disclose Kennedy’s informant status in another murder trial | The issue was previously decided on direct appeal and is barred by res judicata; alternatively, the State did not possess such evidence | McFeeture: the State withheld impeachment evidence about Kennedy’s informant role, violating Brady | Barred by res judicata; no Brady violation shown on postconviction review |
| Whether newly discovered inmate letters (Cline, Newsome) establish a Brady/Napue claim or require an evidentiary hearing | Letters were not in State’s possession, lacked credibility and materiality, and therefore do not show suppression or require a hearing | Letters are new evidence showing Kennedy lied/perjured himself and justify a hearing | Court found letters not credible or material; petitioner failed to set forth operative facts; no hearing required |
| Whether the State knowingly used false testimony (Napue claim) | No evidence the State knew Kennedy’s testimony was false | McFeeture contends Kennedy perjured himself and the State should have known | No showing that the State knowingly used false testimony; Napue claim not established |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the petition without a hearing | The trial court correctly applied the dismissal standard: no substantive grounds shown and res judicata applies | McFeeture contends dismissal denied due process because factual dispute exists requiring a hearing | No abuse of discretion; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (establishes prosecutor’s duty to disclose materially favorable evidence)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (prohibits conviction obtained through use of testimony the prosecution knows is false)
- State v. McFeeture, 36 N.E.3d 689 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015) (direct appeal resolving informant-status/Brady argument and characterizing Kennedy evidence as cumulative)
- State ex rel. Madsen v. Foley Jones, 833 N.E.2d 291 (Ohio 2005) (courts need not hold hearings in every postconviction case; dismissal standards)
- State v. Gondor, 860 N.E.2d 77 (Ohio 2006) (standard of review for postconviction proceedings and abuse-of-discretion review)