State v. Warren
2017 Ohio 853
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 1995 a jury convicted Raymond Warren of murder and a firearm specification; this court affirmed on direct appeal. Warren was sentenced to 15 years-to-life plus 3 consecutive years.
- Trial evidence included: eyewitness testimony by two young men (Antonio Johnson and Chante Hunt) implicating Warren, and atomic absorption (AA) testing showing antimony and barium on Warren’s right palm consistent with gunshot residue (GSR).
- Years later Hunt (1999) and Johnson/Robinson (2008) executed affidavits recanting their trial testimony, alleging police coercion; various public- and private-defense attorneys and innocence-project personnel were involved at intervals between 2003–2014.
- Warren filed pro se and counseled motions seeking leave to file a Crim.R. 33 new-trial motion based on newly discovered evidence (recantations and later critiques of AA/GSR testing); the trial court denied leave without an evidentiary hearing, finding Warren was not unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence and that his delays were unreasonable.
- The appellate court reversed: it held the documents Warren submitted, taken on their face, supported that he may have been unavoidably prevented from timely discovering the evidence and therefore he was entitled to a hearing to determine unavoidable prevention and reasonableness of any delay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Warren) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a hearing on Warren’s motion for leave to file a Crim.R.33 new-trial motion | Denial proper because Warren had long-known concerns (trial cross-examined GSR and witnesses) and had counsel opportunities; affidavits were old and delays unreasonable | The affidavits and supporting exhibits show on their face that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the recantations and GSR science, so he is entitled to a hearing | Reversed: appellate court held trial court abused discretion by denying a hearing; remanded for hearing |
| Whether Warren was "unavoidably prevented" from discovering the recantations within Crim.R.33’s 120-day window | The recantations and testing critiques were discoverable earlier; Warren had access to counsel and transcripts and thus was not unavoidably prevented | Witnesses were intimidated, one recanted only in 1999 and the other in 2008 (and used different names/incarceration), OIP/other counsel failures and incarceration impeded earlier filing | Remanded: appellate court found the submissions on their face could support unavoidable prevention and so a factual hearing is required |
| Whether Warren’s delay in filing after discovery was reasonable | Delay was excessive (years after affidavits); explanations (lack of counsel, incarceration, difficulty locating witnesses) are inadequate | Delay is excused by reliance on counsel/organizations (OIP, OPD, private counsel), difficulties locating/inmate status, and time for scientific developments to emerge | Not finally decided on appeal — trial court must determine at the hearing whether the delay after discovery was reasonable |
| Whether newly cited GSR science (post-2005 symposium) constitutes newly discoverable evidence undermining the AA test used at trial | GSR limitations and alternative sources were explored at trial (defense cross-examined lab witnesses); AA limitations were not newly discoverable to Warren | Post-trial developments and symposium materials undermining AA/GSR reliability are new and material and support leave | Not decided on the merits here; appellate court required an evidentiary hearing to consider whether this science and recantations meet Crim.R.33 standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Schiebel v. Ohio, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1990) (defines "clear and convincing" standard for evidentiary showings)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (articulates definition of the clear-and-convincing standard)
- Walden v. State, 19 Ohio App.3d 141 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984) (explains the "unavoidably prevented" standard for Crim.R.33 relief)
- McConnell v. State, 170 Ohio App.3d 800 (2d Dist. 2007) (procedural framework for evaluating Crim.R.33 leave and post-discovery delay)
- Parker v. State, 178 Ohio App.3d 574 (2d Dist. 2008) (discusses burdens and standards for motions under Crim.R.33)