2013 Ohio 2882
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant Tucker stopped April 12, 2007; charged with aggravated menacing, obstructing official business, carrying a concealed weapon, and weapons under disability; charges escalated to three felonies (two CWs, one tampering with evidence).
- Municipal court transferred charges to suspended docket; Grand Jury indicted Tucker for the same conduct.
- December 2007: Common Pleas convicted Tucker of tampering with evidence and carrying a concealed weapon by guilty pleas; no direct appeal.
- August 2008: Municipal court convicted Tucker of misdemeanors; direct appeal previously unsuccessful.
- Motion for new trial in 2012 challenged as Crim.R. 33(A)(6) newly discovered evidence; relied on Officer Ball’s statement and MVR.
- Motion was denied; Tucker appeals, arguing newly discovered exculpatory evidence warrants relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion denying new-trial motion | State contends no abuse; Ball statement and MVR not newly discovered or exculpatory delaying trial fairness | Tucker argues Brady/Crim.R. 33(A)(6) grounds for new trial due to exculpatory evidence | No abuse; motion denied upheld; timely and not exculpatory enough to require new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 87 (U.S. 1963) (duty to disclose favorable evidence; materiality depends on trial impact)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (duty to disclose favorable evidence; materiality for due process)
- Wickline v. State, 50 Ohio St.3d 114 (Ohio 1990) (timing of disclosure; due process not violated when disclosure occurs during trial)
- Iacona v. Ohio, 93 Ohio St.3d 83 (Ohio 2001) (timing of exculpatory evidence disclosure in trial context)
- State v. Walden, 19 Ohio App.3d 141 (Ohio 1984) (Crim.R. 33(B) standard for leave to file new trial for newly discovered evidence)
- State v. Mathis, 134 Ohio App.3d 77 (Ohio 1999) (standard for withdrawal of time extension etc.; cited with Crim.R. 33(B))
- State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505 (Ohio 1947) (syllabus: criteria for newly discovered evidence under Crim.R. 33(A)(6))
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1990) (standard of review for trial court discretion on new-trial motions)
- State v. Williams, 43 Ohio St.2d 88 (Ohio 1975) (abuse-of-discretion standard for new-trial rulings)