Summary
This Ohio Court of Appeals opinion affirms the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion for leave to file a motion for new trial based on allegedly newly discovered evidence and a claimed Brady violation. The appellate court found that the defendant failed to demonstrate he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence within the statutory time period and concluded that the state did not suppress any exculpatory material. Consequently, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion without a hearing.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying without a hearing Griggs's motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial more than 120 days after trial.
- Whether Griggs established by clear and convincing proof that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence within the period prescribed by Ohio Crim.R. 33(B).
- Whether the alleged suppression of evidence concerning a potential witness and a photo lineup constituted a Brady violation sufficient to satisfy the unavoidable-prevention requirement.
- Whether the documents submitted by Griggs on their face required the trial court to hold a hearing before denying leave.
Holdings
- When a motion for leave is filed more than 120 days after trial, the defendant must establish by clear and convincing proof that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence on which the proposed new-trial motion relies.
- The alleged evidence concerning Tarasco did not establish unavoidable prevention because the phone-call information was disclosed before trial and the record did not establish that Tarasco was interviewed or that additional evidence existed.
- The photo lineup did not establish a Brady violation because the lineup and its markings were presented and examined at trial, and Griggs did not establish that the State suppressed any additional evidence.
- The trial court acted within its discretion in denying the motion for leave without a hearing because the documents submitted by Griggs, on their face, did not demonstrate that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the alleged new evidence.
Key quotations
“Upon review, we conclude that the documents presented by appellant in support of his motion for leave, on their face, do not demonstrate appellant was unavoidably prevented from discovering the new evidence within the 120-day time period.” (¶ 2)
“‘There are three components of a true Brady violation: The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and prejudice must have ensued.’” (¶ 16)
“For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.” (¶ 37)
Factual background
Griggs was convicted of ten robberies arising from multiple incidents, including the robbery of GP Express. At trial, evidence included cell-phone location information, testimony from a co-defendant, vehicle evidence, and a photo lineup in which a witness identified someone other than Griggs. Years later, Griggs alleged that the State had suppressed evidence concerning a possible interview of a phone-call recipient and an unidentified person's markings on the photo lineup. The appellate court concluded that the cell-phone information was available before and during trial, the alleged interview evidence did not exist on the record presented, and the photo lineup was itself presented and examined at trial.
Procedural history
Griggs was convicted after a 2014 bench trial of ten robbery counts and received an aggregate seventeen-year consecutive prison sentence. The Eleventh District affirmed his convictions and sentence in State v. Griggs, 2015-Ohio-4635, and the Supreme Court of Ohio declined jurisdiction. Approximately nine and a half years after trial, Griggs sought leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial based on alleged Brady violations involving cell-phone evidence and a photo lineup. The trial court denied leave without a hearing, and the Eleventh District affirmed.