State v. Montgomery
2016 Ohio 7527
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- In 1986 Cynthia Tincher and Debra (Debbie) Ogle were found murdered; Montgomery was arrested after linking Heard and recovering Montgomery’s gun; Heard later pled guilty to a reduced charge and testified against Montgomery.
- Jury convicted Montgomery of Ogle’s murder and aggravated murder of Tincher; he was sentenced to death and exhausted state and federal direct review.
- Years after trial, a withheld police report surfaced indicating witnesses claimed to have seen Ogle alive on March 12, 1986; defense argued this was exculpatory and material.
- Federal district court granted habeas relief based on nondisclosure; the Sixth Circuit en banc ultimately reversed and denied relief. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari.
- In 2013 Montgomery filed a Crim.R. 33 motion for a new trial based on newly developed forensic pathology opinions (challenging Ogle’s time of death) and the earlier-withheld police report; the trial court denied leave to file a delayed motion for new trial as untimely and dismissed the motion.
- On appeal Montgomery argued (1) the trial court applied the wrong standard and abused discretion denying leave, (2) the court erred by not holding a hearing, and (3) the court erred in denying the new-trial motion; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Montgomery) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred denying leave to file a delayed Crim.R. 33 motion | Denial appropriate because Montgomery failed to show by clear and convincing proof he was unavoidably prevented from timely filing and he did not file within a reasonable time after discovery | Montgomery said the withheld report prevented earlier inquiry into time of death, he lacked funds to obtain experts until later, and he filed reasonably after obtaining the expert report | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion; even if nondisclosure caused initial prevention, Montgomery waited unreasonably long (no adequate explanation) to seek leave |
| Whether the trial court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing on leave | No hearing necessary absent documentary submission that on its face supports unavoidable-prevention claim | Montgomery asserted his expert report plus explanation of the withheld report supported a hearing | No reversible error: appellate court found any failure harmless because Montgomery was not timely in filing after discovery |
| Whether Montgomery was entitled to a new trial on merits of newly discovered evidence | State argued the evidence was cumulative, previously addressed, and witnesses had recanted; prejudice and timeliness concerns | Montgomery argued forensic pathology report undermined time-of-death and together with withheld report warranted new trial | Not reached on merits—appellate court affirmed denial of leave and dismissed as untimely; therefore new-trial claim not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Montgomery, 61 Ohio St.3d 410 (Ohio 1991) (affirming conviction on direct appeal)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
- Montgomery v. Bagley, 581 F.3d 440 (6th Cir. 2009) (panel decision addressing materiality of undisclosed police report)
- Montgomery v. Bobby, 654 F.3d 668 (6th Cir. 2011) (en banc decision reversing district court habeas grant)
- Montgomery v. Robinson, 132 S. Ct. 2376 (U.S. 2012) (denial of certiorari)