State v. Parker
2012 Ohio 362
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Parker, serving a prison sentence for aggravated murder and aggravated robbery with firearm specifications, appealed a trial court denial of his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence (Cousins’ affidavits).
- Parker filed the motion for a new trial in December 2008 alleging actual innocence due to Cousins’ claimed confession to the Letson murder.
- Cousins gave two nearly identical affidavits alleging Parker’s innocence and claiming Cousins murdered Letson; the affidavits referenced years after the 1987 incident.
- The State opposed, arguing the affidavits failed to meet Crim.R. 33 requirements and questioned Cousins’ credibility and history of mental illness.
- The trial court denied the motion after an oral hearing, finding no credible evidence to substantiate Parker’s assertions, leading to Parker’s appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by allowing Cousins to invoke the Fifth Amendment | Parker argues Cousins shouldn’t be allowed to invoke Fifth Amendment rights after submitting affidavits. | Parker contends the court should compel testimony for due process. | Overruled; no compulsion to testify was required. |
| Whether the trial court properly credited the credibility of Cousins’ affidavits | Parker asserts the affidavits are credible enough to warrant a new trial. | State asserts the affidavits are not credible and lack corroboration. | No abuse of discretion; court did not find credibility in the affidavits. |
| Whether the court properly denied the motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence | Parker argues new evidence could change the result. | State contends the new evidence is not likely to change outcome and is not credible. | affirmed; no abuse of discretion in denying new trial. |
| Whether the case should be re-set for retrial or otherwise reconsidered | Parker seeks retrial based on new evidence. | State opposes retrial due to lack of credible evidence. | Affirmed; no basis to remand for retrial. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Matthews, 81 Ohio St.3d 375 (1998) (governs standards for evaluating new-trial motions and discovery)
- Hawkins v. State, 66 Ohio St.3d 339 (1993) (approach to evaluating claims of newly discovered evidence)
- State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505 (1947) (criteria for establishing material, non-cumulative new evidence)
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (1999) (Calhoun factors for credibility of affidavits in new-trial motions)
- Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314 (1999) (limits on witness privilege when defendant’s defense is at issue)
- Davis v. Straub, 430 F.3d 281 (2005) (fifth-amendment invocation and defendant’s right to present witnesses)
- Powell v. United States?, 388 U.S. 14 (1967) (Washington v. Texas—defendant’s right to present witnesses not absolute)
- Hofmann v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (1951) (privilege against self-incrimination and trial rights)
- United States v. Staplton, 297 Fed.Appx. 413 (2008) ((excluded due to non-official reporter in analysis))