State v. Rice
2017 Ohio 501
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Brandon J. Rice was convicted in 2009 of murdering his four‑month‑old son and sentenced to 15 years to life; this court affirmed the conviction on direct appeal.
- Rice later sought a new trial based on allegedly newly discovered opinion evidence from Dr. Joseph Felo (a supervising forensic pathologist) suggesting the injuries were from crushing impact rather than a single strike.
- Rice filed motions (Feb. 28, 2012; supplemented Oct. 12, 2012) requesting a new trial or, alternatively, leave to take Dr. Felo’s deposition to obtain his opinion; the trial court denied the motions in a Nov. 28, 2012 entry without an evidentiary hearing.
- Rice appealed the 2012 denial; this court affirmed, finding Rice failed to show he was unavoidably prevented from discovering Dr. Felo’s opinion and that Felo’s testimony likely would not change the verdict.
- Rice filed a "renewed" motion to depose Dr. Felo on June 3, 2015; the trial court denied it on Nov. 3, 2015 as barred by res judicata, and Rice appealed that denial.
- The appellate court held the trial court had in fact denied the deposition request in 2012, so the 2015 motion was barred by res judicata; Rice's assignment of error was overruled and the trial court judgment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Rice) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court ever ruled on Rice's original motion to depose Dr. Felo | Court did rule in Nov. 28, 2012 entry, denying the motion | The trial court never ruled, so the renewed motion was necessary | Court held the 2012 entry implicitly and explicitly denied the deposition request; issue already decided |
| Whether the June 3, 2015 motion to depose is barred by res judicata | 2015 motion re‑litigates issues decided in 2012; res judicata bars it | The 2015 motion is "new," not successive, so res judicata shouldn't apply | Court held 2015 motion was barred by res judicata because it raised same arguments/evidence as 2012 motion |
| Whether Rice was unavoidably prevented from discovering Dr. Felo’s opinion (affecting new‑trial claim) | Rice lacked opportunity to obtain Felo's opinion before the 120‑day rule; deposition needed | Rice had Felo’s name/contact before trial and coroner testimony placed Felo at the autopsy; Rice could have pursued him earlier | Prior ruling affirmed that Rice failed to prove unavoidable prevention; deposition would be futile absent showing of unavoidable prevention |
| Whether an exception to res judicata should apply to avoid injustice | State: no exceptional circumstances shown to outweigh finality | Rice: asserting injustice if res judicata applied; relied on Natl. Amusements principle | Court found no injustice; Rice had opportunity to appeal the 2012 final order, so res judicata stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Natl. Amusements, Inc. v. Springdale, 53 Ohio St.3d 60 (1990) (discussing narrow exceptions to res judicata where policy outweighs finality)
- State ex rel. Childs v. Lazaroff, 90 Ohio St.3d 519 (2001) (res judicata applicable to successive habeas petitions where appellate rights exist)
- Hudlin v. Alexander, 63 Ohio St.3d 153 (1992) (habeas corpus appealability and res judicata principles)
- Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1 (1963) (noting special finality considerations where life or liberty are at stake)