State v. Schlee
2014 Ohio 5765
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Schlee was convicted of the 1980 aggravated murder of Frank Carroll; after a retrial in 2004 he was again found guilty and sentenced to life with parole eligibility.
- Schlee filed a motion for leave to file a Crim.R. 33 new-trial motion (Aug. 22, 2013) based on (1) a 2010 affidavit from John Turchik recanting or revising the date/details of a conversation with key witness Amy (Woodsby) and (2) a 2013 affidavit from investigator Nancy Robison alleging the prosecution knew of Turchik’s statements and failed to disclose them.
- Schlee argued the new affidavits constituted newly discovered evidence showing possible lack of intent/self-defense and/or prosecutorial nondisclosure that would justify a new trial under Crim.R. 33(A)(6) (and related doctrines).
- The trial court denied leave to file the new-trial motion without a hearing; Schlee appealed, assigning one error challenging that denial as an abuse of discretion.
- The appellate court affirmed, concluding the affidavits were not "newly discovered" because Turchik’s uncertainty about the date was known to the defense before and during trial, and the affidavits primarily impeached prior trial testimony rather than supplying genuinely new exculpatory proof.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Schlee established newly discovered evidence under Crim.R. 33(A)(6) to obtain leave to file a new-trial motion | The state: the motion did not meet Petro/Hawkins requirements; evidence was not new | Schlee: Turchik’s revised affidavit and Robison’s affidavit show exculpatory facts and prosecutorial nondisclosure that could change the verdict | Denied — affidavits were impeaching/contradictory, known or discoverable with diligence, not newly discovered evidence |
| Whether prosecutorial nondisclosure required a new trial or leave to file one | State: no dispositive suppression shown; defense had access to Turchik and opportunity to develop testimony | Schlee: prosecution failed to disclose Turchik’s statements that Woodsby said Schlee had no intention to kill Carroll | Denied — alleged nondisclosure not shown to be new or unavoidable; defense had prior access/opportunity |
| Whether a two-week date discrepancy materially affects guilt (intent/prior calculation) | State: date dispute does not undermine guilt because self-defense would concede killing occurred | Schlee: later date supports alternative theories (self-defense or third-party perpetrator) | Denied — date issue known or discoverable; does not furnish new, outcome-changing evidence |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying a hearing on leave to file | Schlee: court lacked stated reasons and conflated issues; hearing required | State: trial court properly exercised discretion based on record and precedent | Denied — no abuse of discretion; court applied correct legal standards and relied on the record |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hawkins, 66 Ohio St.3d 339 (setting Petro test for new-trial newly discovered evidence)
- State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505 (establishing six-factor test for newly discovered evidence)
- State v. Walden, 19 Ohio App.3d 141 (discussing prosecutorial nondisclosure and when nondisclosed evidence can warrant new trial)
- State v. McConnell, 170 Ohio App.3d 800 (addressing recantations and diligence in discovering new evidence)