State v. McNeill
2016 Ohio 5463
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Freddie McNeill was convicted of aggravated murder in 1995 and sentenced to death; in 2011 he sought leave to file a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
- McNeill alleged the State had withheld an audio tape and a police report showing a key witness failed to identify him in a photo lineup; he claims he only discovered these after a federal court ordered production of the police file.
- He filed an application for leave and a motion for new trial more than 16 years after the verdict; the State argued the motion was untimely under Ohio Crim.R. 33(B) and that McNeill failed to show he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence.
- The trial court denied leave, finding McNeill did not explain the multi-year delay between the federal court order (2007), obtaining an affidavit from trial counsel (June 2011), and filing for leave (September 2011), and concluded the delay was unreasonable.
- The trial court also determined that, even if considered on the merits, the newly proffered evidence was unlikely to change the outcome of a new trial.
- McNeill appealed, raising due process and abuse-of-discretion arguments; the appellate court affirmed, holding the court properly considered timeliness and that McNeill failed to establish unavoidable prevention or a reasonable delay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of leave to file delayed motion for new trial under Crim.R. 33(B) | McNeill: Delay excused because he only learned of the tape when federal court produced the file; reasonable time followed as he had counsel review the tape | State: Motion untimely; McNeill must show he was unavoidably prevented from discovering evidence and that leave was sought within a reasonable time | Court: Court may assess timeliness sua sponte; McNeill failed to explain multi-year delay and did not meet burden to show unavoidable prevention or reasonable promptness; denial affirmed |
| Due process — court raising grounds not argued by State | McNeill: Trial court relied on reasons not raised by State and gave no chance to respond, violating due process | State: Court may determine threshold timeliness issue even if State did not expressly raise each specific basis | Court: No due process violation; timeliness is a threshold issue the court may address and McNeill had burden to show timeliness |
| Consideration of State misconduct/federal court findings in timeliness analysis | McNeill: Trial court should have considered alleged prolonged State suppression, federal court’s findings, and misrepresentations when evaluating delay | State: Record did not show those arguments were presented below or that a federal court made a timeliness finding | Court: McNeill did not present those arguments to trial court and cannot raise them for first time on appeal; no abuse of discretion in not considering them |
| Merits of newly discovered evidence (would it change result) | McNeill: Tape and report showing witness failed to ID him undermine identifications and warrant new trial | State: Evidence not established as newly discovered or sufficiently likely to alter verdict | Court: Merits were moot after denial of leave; court noted even if considered, evidence unlikely to produce different result; assignment of error overruled as moot |
Key Cases Cited
No officially reported authorities with reporter citations were provided in the opinion extract.