State v. Prade
107 N.E.3d 1268
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In 1999 a jury convicted Douglas Prade of the aggravated murder of his ex-wife, Margo Prade; bite-mark evidence and circumstantial proof were central at trial.
- In 2013 a trial court conditionally granted post-conviction relief and a new trial based largely on post-conviction DNA testing; that ruling was later reversed by this Court in State v. Prade, 2014-Ohio-1035.
- On remand the trial court reconsidered Prade’s motion for a new trial, held an evidentiary hearing limited to the four DNA experts who had testified earlier, and denied the motion.
- Prade sought a new trial based on (1) newly obtained Y-STR DNA results from the lab-coat/bite-mark material that excluded him and showed low-level male profiles, and (2) developments criticizing the reliability of forensic bite-mark identification.
- The trial court concluded the new DNA results were likely contamination/transfer or otherwise of limited value and that the bite-mark reliability materials were cumulative or impeachment of evidence already presented at trial; the court therefore denied a new trial.
- Prade appeals the denial, arguing the trial court should have reentered the 2013 new-trial order unconditionally (mandate argument) or, alternatively, abused its discretion in denying relief on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Prade) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court was required by mandate to reenter the 2013 conditional new-trial order unconditionally on remand | This Court’s prior language effectively commanded reentry of an unconditional new-trial order on remand | The prior statements were dicta; no binding mandate existed because the original order was interlocutory and prior appeals were dismissed for lack of a final order | Court: No mandate existed; trial court properly reconsidered the interlocutory new-trial ruling |
| Whether newly discovered DNA (Y-STR) required a new trial under Crim.R. 33(A)(6) | The newly found male DNA (excluding Prade) creates a strong probability of a different verdict and is newly discovered evidence not available at trial | The DNA results are low-level, inconsistent, likely contamination/transfer, cumulative of earlier exclusions, and would not likely change the verdict given the strong circumstantial case | Court: No abuse of discretion; petitioner failed to show a strong probability the new DNA would change the outcome; denial affirmed |
| Whether post-1998 criticism of bite-mark identification and new guidelines warrant a new trial | Modern criticism and ABFO guideline changes mean bite-mark testimony linking Prade would not be available today and thus are new evidence that would likely alter the verdict | Much of the criticism existed pre-trial; the jury heard extensive, varying bite-mark testimony and challenges at trial; the new materials are cumulative or impeachment, not newly discoverable evidence under Crim.R. 33 | Court: No abuse of discretion; the materials were largely cumulative/impeachment and would not likely change the verdict; denial affirmed |
| Admissibility of a post-trial television juror interview proffered by Prade | The interview shows jurors convicted based solely on bite-mark evidence and thus supports a new trial | State opposed admission; trial court excluded or declined to admit (record incomplete) | Court: Appeal cannot review exclusion because the record lacks the hearing transcript or ruling; presumes regularity and does not reverse |
Key Cases Cited
- Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 1984) (law-of-the-case doctrine compels trial courts to follow appellate mandates)
- Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (U.S. 1979) (law-of-the-case doctrine only applies to issues previously decided and within mandate)
- Sprague v. Ticonic Natl. Bank, 307 U.S. 161 (U.S. 1939) (limitations on the scope of mandates)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (trial court gatekeeping for expert testimony)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard defined)
- Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (Ohio 1993) (appellate review and deference to trial court findings)
- Petro v. Baldridge, 148 Ohio St. 505 (Ohio 1948) (standards for granting a new trial based on newly discovered evidence)