State v. Moore
2018 Ohio 318
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Michael Moore was convicted by a jury in 2007 of two counts of murder (with firearm specifications) and one count of having a weapon while under disability; convictions affirmed on direct appeal.
- In 2014 Moore filed a post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel; the trial court denied it and this court affirmed in 2015.
- Moore then asserted he filed a March 25, 2014 motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence (an alleged recantation by eyewitness Omari Kittrell); the motion was not in the trial-court file, triggering multiple remands to ensure the motion and affidavits were made part of the record.
- The trial court ultimately added the motion to the record and denied the Crim.R. 33(A)(6) motion without holding an evidentiary hearing; the court’s denial rested on procedural defects and the court’s assessment of the submitted affidavits.
- Moore appealed solely on the ground that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion without a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in overruling a Crim.R. 33(A)(6) motion for new trial without an evidentiary hearing | State: trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion that was untimely and lacked clear-and-convincing proof of unavoidable delay | Moore: alleged newly discovered evidence (Kittrell’s post-trial statement to Brown) warranted a hearing and new trial | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; motion untimely, Moore did not seek leave to file late, and affidavits failed to show unavoidable delay or sufficiently reliable new evidence |
| Whether Moore complied with Crim.R. 33(B) timing or obtained leave to file late | State: Moore never sought leave to file beyond 120 days; procedural default supports denial | Moore: claimed he only recently learned of the recantation and thus delay was justified | Held: Moore failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he was unavoidably prevented from timely filing; leave required and not shown |
| Whether affidavits submitted establish facts that would require an evidentiary hearing | State: affidavits do not specify when alleged recantation occurred or when Moore learned of it; bare allegations insufficient | Moore: affidavits and motion present recantation claim warranting further inquiry | Held: affidavits were conclusory and did not meet the ‘‘clear and convincing’’ threshold to trigger a hearing |
| Standard of review for denial of Crim.R. 33 motion | State: denial reviewed for abuse of discretion | Moore: argues discretion was abused by failing to hold hearing | Held: abuse-of-discretion standard applied; no abuse found |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hill, 64 Ohio St.3d 313 (Ohio 1992) (standards for new-trial/evidentiary-hearing inquiry)
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1990) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Crim.R. 33 rulings)
- State v. Matthews, 81 Ohio St.3d 375 (Ohio 1998) (procedural requirements and review standard for new-trial motions)
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (Ohio 1990) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- State v. Parker, 178 Ohio App.3d 574 (Ohio Ct. App.) (discussing need to seek leave to file delayed Crim.R. 33 motions)