State v. Thompson
2012 Ohio 4862
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Thompson was convicted in 2008 of recklessly abusing a child, resulting in serious physical harm, a second-degree felony.
- The injury occurred to Thompson’s girlfriend’s infant son who resided with him; medical treatment followed including surgery and weeks of rehabilitation.
- Thompson was sentenced to six years in prison; this court previously affirmed on direct appeal.
- In November 2011 Thompson filed Crim.R. 33 motion for leave to move for a new trial, seeking newly discovered evidence from two doctors.
- The doctors opined the injury’s cause and timing could not be determined and that a fall could have exacerbated an existing condition; Thompson’s mother supported diligent discovery.
- The trial court denied the motion in January 2012, finding Thompson unavoidably prevented from timely discovery due to lack of timely discovery and knowledge of the doctors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Crim.R. 33(B) deadline was properly applied | Thompson | Thompson | No reversible error; denial affirmed |
| Whether a hearing was required on the unavoidably prevented claim | Thompson | Thompson | No hearing required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Walden, 19 Ohio App.3d 141 (10th Dist. 1984) (unavoidably prevented definition for Crim.R. 33)
- State v. Lanier, 2010-Ohio-2921 (2d Dist. Clark No. 2009 CA 84) (hearing not always required on leave motions)
- State v. McConnell, 2007-Ohio-1181 (2d Dist.) (need for timely discovery rules application)
- State v. Mitchell, 2004-Ohio-459 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19816) (hearing standards on leave motions)
- State v. McCoy, 2006-Ohio-1137 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 21032) (abuse of discretion standard in Crim.R. 33 appeals)