2017 Ohio 7225
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant Delrico Robertson was convicted in 2007 of murder (death of Matthew Cox), multiple felonious-assault counts (shootings of Michael Willis and Andre Hayes), and weapons-under-disability; sentence 50 years to life. Appellate court previously affirmed convictions but found certain identification testimony (Detective Upchurch and Jamisha Willis) inadmissible hearsay.
- Robertson obtained leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial alleging newly discovered evidence; the trial court granted a new trial on all counts after a hearing.
- The newly discovered evidence consisted solely of testimony by victim Michael Willis, who at the new-trial hearing recanted/denied earlier identifications and implicated Detective Upchurch’s conduct (saying he never identified Robertson and that the detective improperly influenced a photo lineup and failed to effectuate service for trial subpoena).
- At the original trial Maupin (a jailhouse informant) identified Robertson as Willis’s shooter but had motive to lie (potential plea deal); other trial evidence tied Robertson to the Hayes shooting (victim Hayes knew and identified "Detroit," and Robertson’s fingerprints were in Hayes’s van) and to the Cox murder (multiple eyewitnesses identified Robertson as the shooter).
- The court of appeals reviewed the trial court’s grant of a new trial for abuse of discretion and: affirmed the grant as to the Willis-shooting counts, but reversed as to the Hayes-shooting and Cox-murder counts and remanded accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Robertson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether newly discovered testimony by Willis warranted a new trial for the Willis shooting | Willis’s recantation merely impeaches prior evidence and cannot create strong probability of different result given Maupin’s trial testimony | Willis’s testimony contradicts Maupin and the prior inadmissible identifications and therefore creates a strong probability of a different outcome | New trial for Willis shooting affirmed — court found Willis’s testimony more than mere impeachment and could undermine Maupin’s credibility |
| Whether Willis’s recantation is only impeachment (Petro prong 6) | It is mere impeachment of Upchurch/Jamisha and thus insufficient | It goes beyond impeachment because it presents an alternate account undermining the only admissible witness tying Robertson to the crime | Held not mere impeachment; trial court reasonably could view it as substantive new evidence affecting outcome |
| Whether the new evidence shows strong probability of different result (Petro prong 1) for Willis shooting | No — prior appellate conclusion that Maupin’s testimony alone sufficed means outcome unlikely to change | Yes — given Maupin’s motives and credibility issues, Willis’s testimony could lead a factfinder to discount Maupin | Held for Robertson; given deference to trial court, there was a strong probability of different result on Willis counts |
| Whether Willis’s testimony required new trials on Hayes and Cox charges | Willis’s allegations about Upchurch taint all investigations and thus undermine the Hayes and Cox convictions | Willis’s testimony is limited to his own shooting and does not materially affect the strong independent evidence tying Robertson to Hayes and Cox | Held for State — reversed as to Hayes and Cox; evidence against Robertson there was overwhelming and unaffected by Willis’s testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967) (credibility determinations are for the trier of fact)
- State v. Williams, 43 Ohio St.2d 88 (1975) (motion for new trial is discretionary)
- State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505 (1947) (six-factor test for newly discovered evidence)
- State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (1980) (abuse-of-discretion standard defined)
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (1983) (sufficiency review views evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (clarifies test for sufficiency vs. manifest weight)
- AAAA Enters., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redev. Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (1990) (decision is unreasonable if unsupported by a sound reasoning process)