State v. Richardson
2017 Ohio 8138
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Demetrius Richardson was indicted for rape after conceding he had intercourse with a 12‑year‑old; jury convicted and found victim under 13.
- Before sentencing, Richardson filed a motion for a new trial alleging juror misconduct based on a juror affidavit, an alleged blog post, and a printed browser/search history.
- The trial court held a limited hearing (argument only on written filings) and denied the motion for a new trial for lack of evidence aliunde.
- Court sentenced Richardson to life with parole eligibility after 10 years and classified him a Tier III sex offender.
- Richardson appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by not holding a full evidentiary hearing into alleged juror misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a full evidentiary hearing on alleged juror misconduct | The State argued the court properly required evidence aliunde before considering juror testimony and acted within its discretion in holding a limited hearing | Richardson argued his filings (juror affidavit, blog narrative, internet history) warranted a full evidentiary hearing to probe juror misconduct and prejudice | Court held no abuse of discretion: Richardson failed to present extraneous, independent evidence tying the alleged misconduct to the verdict, and did not request or preserve objection to a full hearing |
| Whether juror affidavit and appended materials constituted competent evidence aliunde to permit juror testimony | State maintained the affidavit and attachments were insufficient and largely self‑sourced or unauthenticated | Richardson contended the blog and search history supplied the necessary outside evidence under cases like Gunnell and Kehn | Held that the blog was unsigned/unauthenticated and the search history was undated/unlinked to the juror, so no competent aliunde evidence existed; Evid.R. 606(B) barred consideration of juror testimony absent such evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for abuse of discretion)
- Schiebel v. Ohio, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1990) (requires extraneous, independent evidence before juror testimony may impeach a verdict)
- Hessler v. State, 90 Ohio St.3d 108 (Ohio 2000) (protecting sanctity of jury deliberations)
- Gunnell v. State, 132 Ohio St.3d 442 (Ohio 2012) (trial court duty to investigate possible juror improprieties discovered during deliberations)
- Kehn v. State, 50 Ohio St.2d 11 (Ohio 1977) (detailed juror notes can constitute outside evidence)
- Rogers v. State, 68 Ohio App.3d 4 (Ohio Ct. App.) (juror testimony cannot be admitted to impeach verdict absent foundation aliunde)