2018 Ohio 3444
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In January 2005 Trimble shot and killed three people during a rampage; jury convicted him of three aggravated murders and recommended death. Ohio Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal.
- Years after trial, two emails from former deputy Michael Muldowney surfaced, asserting a “rogue SWAT officer” had been inside the Positano residence during the standoff—potentially supporting Trimble’s trial defense that law enforcement presence caused an accidental shooting.
- Trimble sought leave to file a delayed new-trial motion under Crim.R. 33(B) based on these post-trial emails; this Court twice remanded for the trial court to address whether Trimble was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence.
- On remand Trimble filed a delayed new-trial motion and moved for discovery, seeking Metro SWAT Unit files (or in camera review) and other records; the trial court denied discovery as to Metro SWAT files and ultimately denied the new-trial motion.
- The court below held Muldowney’s email was not newly discovered, not material to change the result, and that Trimble could have obtained SWAT files with due diligence before or during trial; it also found Trimble’s SWAT-files request cumulative and not necessary for due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying discovery of Metro SWAT files | State: denial proper because Crim.R.33 does not grant broad discovery and Trimble failed to show unavoidable delay or good cause | Trimble: needed SWAT files to develop newly discovered-evidence claim and show rogue officer; requested in camera review if not released | Court: no abuse; SWAT files were discoverable pretrial, cumulative to trial evidence, and Trimble failed to show due diligence barriers or materiality |
| Whether Muldowney emails constitute "newly discovered evidence" under Crim.R.33(A)(6) | State: emails insufficient, hearsay, not clearly material | Trimble: emails corroborate his theory that officers were inside residence and would change result | Court: emails do not establish evidence that would change result; they largely mirror trial defense and lack new materiality |
| Whether Trimble was unavoidably prevented from discovering evidence within 120 days | State: Trimble could have discovered SWAT files with due diligence | Trimble: emails were sent years later and thus unavailable earlier | Court: emails were not discoverable earlier, so delayed leave to file was proper as to those emails; but SWAT files were available pretrial, so no unavoidable delay for those files |
| Whether denial of discovery violated due process or equal protection | Trimble: indigent status and denial prevented developing factual basis for relief | State: Trimble had subpoena power, hearing, and opportunities to obtain records earlier | Court: no due process or equal protection violation; Trimble offered no reason he didn’t subpoena SWAT records earlier |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Trimble, 122 Ohio St.3d 297 (2009) (direct-appeal decision affirming convictions and discussing trial evidence and instructions)
- State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505 (1947) (establishes elements for newly discovered evidence supporting new trial)
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (1990) (motion for new trial under Crim.R.33(B) is addressed to trial court's sound discretion)
- Domanski v. Woda, 132 Ohio St. 208 (1937) (party must exercise due diligence to investigate and produce evidence at trial)