State v. Smith
2016 Ohio 7904
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 2005 Ronald Smith was convicted of aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery and sentenced to consecutive ten-year terms (20 years). His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Smith filed multiple post-conviction motions for a new trial over the years alleging newly discovered evidence pointing to another suspect, LaQwan Scandrick, aka “Little Ronnie.”
- In October 2015 Smith filed (1) a new-trial motion based on an affidavit and letter from Nancy C. Duke claiming she saw Smith drive away and Scandrick kick in the door, and (2) a separate motion for leave to file that untimely new-trial motion.
- The trial court denied the new-trial motion as untimely because Smith filed it without first obtaining leave under Crim.R. 33(B). The court denied the motion for leave after finding Smith failed to prove he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence within 120 days and doubting the credibility and timing of the affidavits.
- The court noted inconsistencies among Duke’s affidavit, Smith’s earlier statements, and Scandrick’s prior affidavit, plus Smith’s history of attempts to obstruct justice and prior suspect affidavits, undercutting the claim that the evidence would likely change the verdict.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave or the new-trial motion and that, even if timely, the proffered evidence did not show a strong probability of a different outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying leave to file an untimely new-trial motion under Crim.R. 33(B) | State: denial appropriate because defendant failed to show by clear and convincing proof that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence | Smith: Duke’s affidavit is newly discovered and he did not know of her; therefore he was unavoidably prevented from filing within 120 days | Denied — no abuse of discretion; Smith failed to prove unavoidable prevention and affidavits lacked credibility |
| Whether the proffered new evidence warrants a new trial under Crim.R. 33(A)(6) (Petro factors) | State: evidence is unreliable, inconsistent, cumulative, and would not create strong probability of acquittal | Smith: Duke’s affidavit places Scandrick at the scene and exculpates Smith, creating a strong probability of a different result | Denied — court found the affidavit not credible and insufficient to show a strong probability of a different outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (trial-court new-trial decision reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Huffman v. Hair Surgeon, Inc., 19 Ohio St.3d 83 (definition of abuse of discretion)
- State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505 (elements for new trial based on newly discovered evidence)
- State v. Parker, 178 Ohio App.3d 574 (requirement to show clear and convincing proof of unavoidable prevention under Crim.R. 33(B))