State v. Ross
2014 Ohio 2038
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- 1999 Hannah Hill murder; Ross was tried, mistrial occurred, retrial occurred years later in 2012, and he was convicted of murder, felony murder with felonious assault as the predicate, tampering with evidence, gross abuse of a corpse, and felonious assault.
- Ross was sentenced to 19 years to life in prison.
- On September 27, 2013, Ross filed a petition for post-conviction relief and a discovery motion alleging juror impartiality based on his father’s visit to the Remembering Hannah Hill website and identification of the foreperson as a “friend.”
- Ross claimed the foreperson’s online association called into question her impartiality and violated his due process rights.
- The trial court denied the petition without a hearing and denied discovery.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the petition failed to raise substantive grounds for relief and discovery is not mandated in post-conviction proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by denying post-conviction relief without a hearing | Ross argues juror misconduct was shown by the foreperson’s online affiliation | Ross failed to present sufficient operative facts or evidence of actual misconduct | No reversible error; no hearing required due to lack of substantive facts |
| Whether Ross was entitled to discovery in his post-conviction proceeding | Discovery is necessary to determine juror impartiality | There is no right to discovery in post-conviction relief per applicable Ohio law | No error; no discovery right in post-conviction relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Calhoun v. State, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (1999) (gatekeeping; sufficiency of facts for post-conviction relief)
- Wesson v. State, 2012-Ohio-4495 (2012) (no discovery in post-conviction relief; abuse of discretion standard)
- Kiley v. State, 2013-Ohio-634 (2013) (insufficient operative facts; speculation cannot entitle relief)
- Gondor v. State, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (2006) (gatekeeping function in post-conviction relief)
- State v. Williams, 99 Ohio St.3d 439 (2003) (juror remains impartial after verdict; no immediate recusal shown)
- State v. Chesrown, 2014-Ohio-680 (2014) (post-conviction relief arguments rejected as speculative)
- State v. Craig, 2010-Ohio-1169 (2010) (no right to discovery in post-conviction relief; precedent)