State v. Kesman

Summary

The Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed Jeffrey A. Kesman, Sr.’s convictions for four counts of child endangering and the denial of his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The court addressed the sufficiency and credibility of evidence concerning alleged child confinement, deprivation, and abuse, as well as whether evidence of contact between two witnesses and prosecutorial communications regarding a protection-order case warranted a new trial.

Holdings

1. The convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence because the trial court did not clearly lose its way in crediting material portions of the victims' testimony and rejecting Kesman's account.
2. The alleged suppression did not violate due process because, considered individually and cumulatively, the undisclosed evidence was not sufficiently material to undermine confidence in the verdict.
3. The trial court properly denied the motion for a new trial because the new testimony did not establish a strong probability that a new trial would produce a different result and instead largely confirmed the victims' trial accounts.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Jeffrey Kesman's convictions for endangering children were against the manifest weight of the evidence.
2. Whether the state violated Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States by failing to disclose evidence concerning contact between two victims and a prosecutor's actions in connection with one victim's separate criminal case.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion for a new trial based on testimony that two victims coordinated their trial testimony.

Disposition

affirmed