2019 Ohio 2430
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- In 1989 John Tiedjen was convicted of murder; he alleged at trial he acted in self-defense after initially telling police he didn’t know how the victim died.
- Tiedjen later obtained 76 additional crime-scene photographs (beyond the ten admitted at trial) and in 2016 moved for leave to file a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence and Brady claims.
- At 2017 hearings the court admitted 86 crime-scene photos into evidence, but the exhibits (including the newly discovered photos and trial exhibits) later went missing from the record and could not be produced on appeal.
- The trial court denied leave to file a new-trial motion, finding the photographs not exculpatory and limiting expert testimony on crime-scene reconstruction.
- On appeal the majority reversed, concluding (1) the photographs were newly discovered and Tiedjen was unavoidably prevented from discovering them, (2) the trial court abused its discretion by excluding expert testimony on the photos’ materiality/exculpatory value, and (3) the due-process claim was not barred by res judicata; the case was remanded for either a Jones hearing to determine responsibility for the missing exhibits or, if the photos are found, a full hearing on the motion for new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Tiedjen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the newly discovered photographs qualify for leave to file a delayed motion for new trial | The State contended the trial court reasonably found the photos not exculpatory and that leave was properly denied | Tiedjen argued the photos were newly discovered, in the State’s exclusive control, and he was unavoidably prevented from discovering them within the Crim.R. 33 deadlines | Reversed: court found photos were newly discovered and Tiedjen was unavoidably prevented from discovering them; remanded for Jones hearing or full new-trial hearing if photos located |
| Whether the trial court erred by excluding the defense expert’s testimony on the photos’ exculpatory value | State argued expert testimony was premature and irrelevant at the leave-stage; evaluation of exculpatory nature is a legal question for the court | Tiedjen argued expert reconstruction was necessary to show materiality and exculpatory effect of photos | Held: abuse of discretion to exclude expert as to whether photos were material/exculpatory; expert testimony may be relevant to merits of a new-trial motion |
| Whether missing exhibits in the appellate record require reversal or other relief | State largely conceded some exhibits were missing but did not show defendant caused the loss | Tiedjen argued missing admitted exhibits prevent meaningful appellate review and require remedial proceedings | Held: because admitted exhibits are missing and parties cannot supplement the record, remand required for a Jones evidentiary hearing to determine fault for missing items; if not lost, full hearing on new-trial motion required |
| Whether res judicata bars Tiedjen’s late due-process/new-evidence claim | State implied procedural bars and delay should preclude relief | Tiedjen argued evidence was outside the record and unavailable at trial so res judicata does not apply | Held: res judicata did not bar the claim given newly discovered evidence outside the trial record and unavoidable prevention of discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jones, 71 Ohio St.3d 293 (Ohio 1994) (hearing to determine whether defendant caused nonproduction of appellate record may be required)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution’s suppression of material exculpatory evidence violates due process)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1985) (suppressed evidence is material if it creates a reasonable probability of a different outcome)
- State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505 (Ohio 1947) (standards for granting new trial based on newly discovered evidence)
- State v. Skatzes, 104 Ohio St.3d 195 (Ohio 2004) (appellate review despite missing exhibits when defendant at fault or failed to attempt reconstruction)
- Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (Ohio 1980) (new trial may be warranted where record is incomplete through no fault of moving party)