State v. Phillips
2017 Ohio 8004
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Malcolm Phillips was convicted in 2012 of cocaine possession with a firearm specification and having a weapon while under disability; this court previously affirmed the convictions.
- After trial, the prosecutor informed Phillips's counsel that Reynoldsburg PD Detective Tye Downard was arrested on federal drug charges (and later died in custody); Phillips moved for leave to file a delayed Crim.R. 33(A)(6) motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence challenging Downard's credibility.
- Phillips later supplemented the motion with evidence that Sergeant Shane Mauger (also Reynoldsburg PD) pleaded guilty to federal offenses involving theft and civil-rights conspiracy; Phillips argued both officers' misconduct undermined their trial testimony.
- The trial court found Phillips was unavoidably prevented from discovering the officers' misconduct but denied leave to file a new-trial motion on the merits, concluding the officers played only a minor role and the key evidence came from the Whitehall Police Department (WPD).
- The trial court and this appellate panel held the officers' testimony was not material to Phillips's defense and the new evidence did not disclose a strong probability of a different result; the denial was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Phillips) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Phillips was entitled to leave to file a delayed Crim.R. 33(A)(6) motion | State conceded Phillips was unavoidably prevented from discovering the officers' misconduct. | Phillips asserted he could not have discovered the officers' federal misconduct within 120 days and promptly sought leave after learning of it. | Court agreed he was unavoidably prevented, so addressed the merits. |
| Whether the newly discovered evidence is material and warrants a new trial under Petro factors | State argued the officers had minimal roles; key proof came from WPD, so officers' misconduct would not change the outcome. | Phillips argued Downard's and Mauger's federal misconduct undermined their credibility and was material to his convictions. | Court held the officers' roles were minor, their testimony not material to Phillips's defense, and the new evidence did not show a strong probability of a different result; denial affirmed. |
| Whether the trial court erred by deciding the merits when only a motion for leave was before it | State and majority proceeded to address merits after conceding unavoidable prevention. | Phillips (and dissent) argued addressing merits at leave stage was improper and that the threshold should control. | Majority addressed both threshold and merits; dissent argued the court should have granted leave and remanded. |
| Whether denial without an evidentiary hearing was proper | State argued no hearing needed because new evidence was not material. | Phillips sought leave and implied a hearing would be appropriate given seriousness of officers' convictions. | Court held no hearing required because the Petro factors were not met and the new evidence would not likely change the verdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- Walden v. State, 19 Ohio App.3d 141 (10th Dist. 1984) (defines "unavoidably prevented" standard for delayed new-trial motions)
- State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505 (1947) (sets the multi-factor test for newly discovered evidence new-trial motions)
- State v. Hill, 64 Ohio St.3d 313 (1992) (trial court has discretion to decide whether an evidentiary hearing on a new-trial motion is warranted)