State v. Rossi
2012 Ohio 2545
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Rossi charged with Sexual Imposition (R.C. 2907.06(A)(1)) and Public Indecency (R.C. 2907.09(A)(1)); bench trial; found guilty on both counts.
- This court previously affirmed Rossi’s conviction in State v. Rossi, Montgomery App. No. 22803, 2009-Ohio-1963, while Rossi’s Crim.R. 33 motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence was pending.
- Rossi sought a new trial after a blog post on the victim’s MySpace page appeared to recant or contradict trial testimony; the post suggested the victim may have lied.
- The trial court initially ruled it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the new-trial motion during the appeal; this Court later reversed and remanded for merits consideration.
- At a February 28, 2011 hearing, the trial court denied the new-trial motion, and Rossi appealed; the court of appeals affirmed, upholding the trial court’s rulings.
- The defense also challenged the admission of Detective Roderick’s computer-forensics testimony and raised ineffective-assistance arguments regarding electronic-file handling of the blog post.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying the new-trial motion | Rossi argued the blog post was newly discovered and exculpatory | State contends the blog post is not credible or strong enough to warrant a new trial | No abuse; denial affirmed |
| Whether Detective Roderick’s expert testimony was properly admitted | Rossi contends the testimony did not aid the factfinder | State showed expert qualifications and relevance under Evid. R. 702 | Admissible expert testimony upheld |
| Whether Rossi received ineffective assistance of counsel based on handling of electronic blog-file | Counsel failed to present authentic electronic file | Record shows no preserved file and Rossi waived continuance | No ineffective-assistance proven; claim rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (1990) (abuse of discretion standard for trial decisions)
- Huffman v. Hair Surgeon, Inc., 19 Ohio St.3d 83 (1985) (definition of abuse of discretion; reasonable/irreasonable acts)
- State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505 (1947) (newly discovered evidence criteria)
- City of Toledo v. Easterling, 26 Ohio App.3d 59 (1985) (recantation evidence must meet strict scrutiny)
- State v. LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181 (2002) (inherent authority to grant new trials for newly discovered evidence)
- State v. Perkins, 2011-Ohio-5070 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24397) (burden to show strong probability of different result)
- State v. Williams, 2004-Ohio-3135 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19854) (newly discovered evidence—impeachment/recantation considerations)
- State v. Smith, 84 Ohio App.3d 647 (1992) (expert testimony relevance and admissibility)
- State v. Balady, 84 Ohio App.3d 647 (1992) ((note: if duplicative, include only the accurate cited case))