State v. Taylor
2011 Ohio 2563
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Taylor was convicted in 1998 of murder with a firearm specification and sentenced to 18 years to life; direct appeal affirmed.
- The underlying facts showed Metz was killed during a marijuana transaction at Metz's apartment, with multiple witnesses describing gunfire and varying roles of Taylor, Lunsford, Landers, and Joe.
- Lunsford testified to gunfire exchange; Taylor allegedly appeared with a gun but its firing was disputed; blood, gunpowder residue, and a firearm were recovered.
- In 2007 Taylor filed Crim.R. 33(A)(6) motion for a new trial based on affidavits claiming Lunsford admitted false testimony and Metz shot Taylor, with later supplementation including Taylor’s self-defense claim.
- The trial court denied the motion in 2010, finding no unavoidably prevented discovery and that the affidavits were not credible; the court concluded the motion was untimely and lacking materiality.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding no abuse of discretion, the affidavits were not credible, and the new evidence was not material to the defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness and hearing requirement for Crim.R. 33(A)(6) | State argued untimely and credibility supported denial | Taylor contends unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence and warranted a hearing | No abuse; denial affirmed |
| Materiality of the new evidence | State contends evidence not material to defense | Taylor contends evidence would change outcome | Not material; would not likely alter result |
| Credibility of the affidavits | State argues affidavits unreliable and self-contradictory | Taylor relies on affidavits as credible new proof | No abuse; affidavits deemed not credible |
| Unavoidably prevented discovery and timing | State notes nine-year delay and lack of showing unavoidably prevented discovery | Taylor argues late discovery due to impediments | Untimely; no clear convincing proof of unavoidably prevented discovery |
| Trial court’s discretion standard | State asserts standard properly applied | Taylor contends discretionary misapplication | Discretion not abused; decision within bounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Petro v. State, 148 Ohio St. 505 (Ohio 1947) (established Crim.R. 33(A)(6) standards for new trials based on newly discovered evidence)
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (Ohio 1999) (credibility and timeliness considerations for new-trial affidavits; unavoidably prevented discovery factors)
- State v. Lanier, 2010-Ohio-2921 (Ohio 2010) (credibility assessment of affidavits; Calhoun factors apply)
- State v. DeVaughns, 2011-Ohio-125 (Ohio 2011) (Crim.R. 33(A)(6) materiality and diligence standards)
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1990) (abuse of discretion standard on appellate review)
- Huffman v. Hair Surgeon, Inc., 19 Ohio St.3d 83 (Ohio 1985) (defining abuse of discretion as unreasonable or arbitrary)