State v. Reed
2019 Ohio 3295
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- In 2002 Reed was convicted of murder (with firearm specification) and tampering with evidence; sentenced to an aggregate 20 years to life. He appealed and convictions were affirmed.
- Over the years Reed filed multiple postconviction motions and motions for leave to file delayed new-trial motions alleging prosecutorial misconduct, witness benefits/false testimony, and existence of an alternative suspect (Patron Steele). Many prior motions were denied and/or found barred by res judicata.
- In November 2018 Reed filed a motion for leave to file a delayed Crim.R. 33 motion based on newly discovered documents (plea agreements, police reports, plea-related entries) from related Miami County prosecutions that he said showed witness benefits and an alternate suspect. He attached an affidavit and 27 exhibits.
- The State opposed, arguing the documents were not newly discovered, Reed was not unavoidably prevented from earlier discovery, and res judicata applied; the State asked denial without a hearing.
- The trial court denied leave without a hearing, finding Reed failed to show newly discovered evidence, failed to show unavoidable delay, and that the materials did not show witnesses received benefits for testifying in the Montgomery County case or that Steele was responsible. Reed appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Reed) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether a hearing was required on Reed’s motion for leave to file a delayed new-trial motion | No hearing required where Reed’s filings did not, on their face, establish unavoidable prevention or newly discovered material warranting a hearing | A hearing was required because his affidavit and exhibits prima facie showed prosecutorial misconduct and withheld exculpatory material | Trial court did not abuse discretion; no hearing required because documents did not on their face meet the clear-and-convincing/unavoidable-prevention standard |
| 2. Whether the exhibits constituted newly discovered exculpatory evidence (witness benefits or alternative suspect) | Exhibits do not show benefits given for testimony in Montgomery County or establish Steele as likely perpetrator; many exhibits irrelevant | Exhibits (plea agreements, police reports, judgments, witness statements) show witnesses received benefits and point to Steele as an alternative suspect | Denied: documents were not newly discovered such that they required leave; they did not prove withheld Brady material or provide grounds for a new trial |
| 3. Whether Reed was unavoidably prevented from discovering the asserted new evidence within Crim.R. 33(B)’s 120 days | Reed had access or could have obtained the Miami County materials earlier; some exhibits predated and some were already attached to prior motions | State withheld or disavowed existence of documents; Reed had no realistic opportunity to obtain them earlier | Reed failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he was unavoidably prevented from timely discovering the evidence |
| 4. Whether res judicata or prior proceedings bar Reed’s claims | Prior opportunities (trial record, direct appeal, prior postconviction motions) meant issues could have been raised earlier | Prior rulings and procedural posture unfairly limited his ability to raise newly discovered material later | Court relied on record and prior decisions; res judicata and prior proceedings weighed against Reed’s successive claims (no successful showing to overcome bar) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173, 2009-Ohio-6434, 920 N.E.2d 958 (Ohio 2009) (discusses sentencing/post-release-control principles relied on in prior Reed filings)
- State v. Reed, 155 Ohio App.3d 435, 2003-Ohio-6536, 801 N.E.2d 862 (2d Dist. 2003) (Reed I) (appellate opinion affirming Reed’s convictions on direct appeal)
- State v. Reed, (2d Dist. 2015) (Note: Reed III was cited in the opinion as a precedent upholding denial of an earlier delayed-new-trial motion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (standard for reviewing abuse of discretion)
- State v. Parker, 178 Ohio App.3d 574, 2008-Ohio-5178, 899 N.E.2d 183 (2d Dist. 2008) (definition of "unavoidably prevented" for delayed new-trial motions)
- State v. Walden, 19 Ohio App.3d 141, 483 N.E.2d 859 (10th Dist. 1984) (source of the standard quoted for unavoidable prevention)