State v. Sailor
2014 Ohio 1062
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- In 2003 Sailor was tried with codefendants for the November 17, 2002 shootings that killed Omar Clark; eyewitnesses at the scene identified Sailor holding a handgun.
- A jury convicted Sailor on counts including murder and he was sentenced to 28 years-to-life.
- After sentencing, Cordell (codefendant) later claimed at a post-sentencing hearing that Sizemore, not Sailor, was present and that Cordell shot in self-defense; a first post-trial motion for new trial was denied and that denial affirmed on direct appeal.
- In 2013 Sailor moved for leave to file a successive motion for new trial (or, alternatively, petition for postconviction relief) based on an affidavit from the victim’s brother reporting a conversation with William Sizemore saying Sizemore was at the scene and Sailor’s name never arose.
- The trial court denied leave without a hearing; Sailor appealed arguing due process violations and that the new affidavit constituted newly discovered evidence warranting a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying leave to file a delayed motion for new trial without a hearing | State: the affidavit was insufficient to meet the clear-and-convincing/unavoidably prevented standard and no hearing was required under Crim.R. 33 | Sailor: Umar Clark’s affidavit from Sizemore’s statements is newly discovered evidence that likely would change the verdict and warranted a hearing | Court held no abuse of discretion; affidavit lacked detail, contradicted eyewitness trial evidence, and did not show a strong probability of a different result, so no hearing required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505, 76 N.E.2d 370 (1947) (factors for newly discovered evidence to warrant new trial)
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 714 N.E.2d 905 (1999) (trial court may weigh credibility of affidavits in postconviction/new-trial context and factors to consider)
- State v. LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181, 767 N.E.2d 166 (2002) (standard of review for denial of motion for new trial—abuse of discretion)