State v. Webb
2014 Ohio 2894
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Webb was sentenced to death in 1993 for knowingly starting a fatal house fire and was later the subject of multiple post-conviction and collateral proceedings over the years.
- He sought leave to file a delayed Crim.R. 33(A)(6) motion for a new trial based on alleged Brady violations (two potential alternative suspects) and on newly discovered fire-science arguments.
- The trial court denied leave; Webb appealed, arguing Brady materiality and due-process implications plus new-arson science warranted a new trial.
- The appellate court reviews the Brady claims under due-process standards and applies Crim.R. 33(A)(6) standards to the newly discovered-evidence claim, affirming the trial court.” ,
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the state’s alleged Brady violations warrant a new trial? | Brady materiality would undermine trial confidence. | Non-disclosure of Gambrell report and Bob-affidavit could have changed outcome. | No; no reasonable probability the outcome would differ. |
| Is the alleged ‘mysterious Bob’ evidence material? | Evidence could exonerate Webb by suggesting another culprit. | Evidence lacks credibility and materiality; no impact on verdict. | No; not material, even if existent. |
| Does new fire-science constitute grounds for a new trial under Crim.R. 33(A)(6)? | Dr. Hurst’s report shows alternative origin possible; trial result could change. | Fire-science evidence impeaches but does not create a reasonable probability of different result. | No; evidence does not create a reasonable probability of different outcome. |
| Was an evidentiary hearing required on Allen’s affidavit allegations? | Trial court should hear credibility-specific allegations. | Inconsistencies render further hearing unnecessary. | No; court did not abuse discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bagley v. United States, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (material evidence must create a reasonable probability of a different outcome)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (materiality and suppression of evidence—reasonable probability standard)
- State v. Brown, 2007-Ohio-4837 (Ohio) (undisclosed evidence not material without reasonable probability of different result)
- State v. LaMar, 2002-Ohio-2128 (Ohio) (definition of material Brady evidence; reasonable probability standard)
- State v. Mills, 2001 WL 237096 (Ohio) (Brady materiality; not necessarily automatic entitlement to new trial)
- State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505 (1947) (syllabus on newly discovered evidence standard)
- State v. Williams, 2003-Ohio-5873 (Ohio) (Crim.R. 33 due-process considerations for newly discovered evidence)
- State v. Lindsey, 2004-Ohio-4407 (Ohio) (test for likely impact of newly discovered evidence on guilt)
- Webb v. Mitchell, 586 F.3d 383 (6th Cir. 2009) (Sixth Circuit rejection of materiality of Gambrell/Allen evidence in habeas context)