Summary
The Third District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirms the trial court's partial denial of the defendant's motion for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The court holds that the defendant failed to demonstrate a Brady violation regarding the state's failure to disclose a jailhouse informant's cell-assignment records, as the information was accessible to the defense through reasonable diligence. Furthermore, the court finds the records were not material to the conviction given other impeachment evidence and the trial court's reliance on independent evidence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court erred in finding that Parsons was not unavoidably prevented from discovering the cell‑assignment records under Brady v. Maryland.
Holdings
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion; Parsons was not unavoidably prevented from discovering the cell‑assignment records and therefore did not establish a Brady violation.
Key quotations
““A party is ‘unavoidably prevented’ from filing a motion for a new trial if the party had no knowledge of the existence of the ground supporting the motion and could not have learned of that existence within the time prescribed for filing the motion… The ‘unavoidably prevented’ requirement can also be met by establishing that the state suppressed the evidence he is relying on to seek a new trial.”” (¶12)
““There is no need to require the state to ‘disclose’ material that is readily available to the defense.”” (¶28)
Factual background
Parsons was convicted of attempted murder, felonious assault, and illegal firearm possession. He alleges that jail‑house informant Rolando Valle’s testimony was fabricated and that cell‑assignment records and interview materials exonerate him. The State allegedly withheld the cell‑assignment records.
Procedural history
Parsons was convicted in 2016 and directly appealed his sentence. After resentencing, he filed post‑conviction motions for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The trial court denied the motion regarding jail‑house cell‑assignment records, finding no Brady violation. The Court of Appeals reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion.
Remand instructions
Remanded to the trial court for execution of the judgment for costs.