2024 Ohio 1360
Ohio Ct. App.2024Background
- In 1995, brothers Willie and Ashunte Smith were separately convicted of kidnapping and aggravated murder in connection to the death of Reginald Gary Lewis.
- William Marshall, their cousin and a key eyewitness, testified at both trials that the Smiths killed Lewis; Marshall's testimony was procured through a plea agreement with the state, which kept him in juvenile court and reduced his charges.
- Decades after their convictions, Marshall signed an affidavit recanting his trial testimony and claiming that their uncle, not Willie or Ashunte, killed Lewis; he alleged his original testimony was coerced by police threats.
- Both appellants filed motions for leave to file new trial motions based on Marshall’s recantation and, for Willie, alleged new inconsistencies in Ashunte’s 1996 trial transcript.
- The trial court denied both motions without hearings; the Smiths appealed, arguing they were unavoidably prevented from earlier discovering this new evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Smiths’ Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Marshall’s recantation is newly discovered evidence justifying leave to file a new trial motion | They couldn’t have learned of the recantation sooner because it didn’t exist and Marshall was incentivized not to recant | The recantation is not credible, and the Smiths didn't show unavoidable delay in discovering it | Court reversed denial, holding they were entitled to a hearing on whether they were unavoidably prevented from timely discovering Marshall’s recantation |
| Whether inconsistencies in Ashunte’s trial transcript constitute newly discovered evidence for Willie | Transcripts revealed significant new inconsistencies between witness accounts not previously available | No specific new information identified; creation of transcript after verdict isn’t enough | Court affirmed denial; Smiths didn’t specify new evidence or show diligence |
| Whether the trial court erroneously denied the motions without an evidentiary hearing | Court abused discretion by denying leave without a hearing when the supporting affidavit raises genuine issues of unavoidable delay | No hearing needed where affidavits don’t show unavoidable prevention | Court reversed in part; hearing required for Marshall's recantation but not for transcript issue |
| Whether the trial court had to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law | Findings necessary for appellate review | Not required by rule | Not required (but best practice); court’s lack of findings not reversible here |
Key Cases Cited
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (clear-and-convincing standard defined)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse of discretion standard)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (federal due process case on suppression of exculpatory evidence)
- Hatton, 169 Ohio St.3d 446 (procedure for leave to file new trial motion)
- Bethel, 167 Ohio St.3d 362 (standard for new trial motions and review of recantations)
- Johnson, 2024-Ohio-134 (affidavit date alone not enough to show unavoidable prevention)