Summary
The Ohio First District Court of Appeals reversed the denial of Angelo Howard's motions for leave to file delayed motions for a new trial. The court held that the trial court improperly considered the merits before determining whether Howard was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence or timely filing the motion. The court remanded for an evidentiary hearing concerning alleged suppression of exculpatory evidence and application of the unavoidable-prevention standard.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court erred by considering the merits of Howard's proposed new-trial motion before determining whether he was entitled to leave under Crim.R. 33(B).
- Whether a defendant seeking leave to file a delayed new-trial motion must establish unavoidable prevention from timely discovering newly discovered evidence or timely filing a prosecutorial-misconduct motion.
- Whether a Crim.R. 33(B) motion for leave asserting a Brady violation requires an evidentiary hearing when the submitted evidence tends to show that the prosecution suppressed the evidence.
- Whether, for a delayed new-trial motion asserting a Brady violation, the defendant satisfies Crim.R. 33(B)'s unavoidable-prevention requirement by showing suppression rather than by showing that reasonable diligence could not have uncovered the evidence.
Holdings
- A delayed new-trial proceeding under Crim.R. 33(B) is bifurcated: the court must first determine whether leave is warranted under the unavoidable-prevention standard, and the merits of the new-trial motion are not properly before the court unless leave is granted.
- Leave may be granted only after the trial court finds that the defendant was unavoidably prevented from timely discovering the evidence supporting a Crim.R. 33(A)(6) motion or from timely filing a Crim.R. 33(A)(2) motion.
- An evidentiary hearing is required on a Crim.R. 33(B) motion for leave when the evidence submitted in support demonstrates on its face that the defendant may have been unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence.
- A defendant asserting a Brady violation in a delayed new-trial motion is not required to show that he could not have discovered the suppressed evidence through reasonable diligence; the defendant satisfies the unavoidable-prevention requirement by establishing that the prosecution suppressed the evidence on which the motion relies.
Key quotations
“Crim.R. 33, by its terms, contemplates a bifurcated proceeding when a motion for a new trial [is filed out of time]. First, the court must review the motion for leave, along with any evidentiary material supporting the motion, and decide whether, under Crim.R. 33(B)’s unavoidable-prevention standard, leave to file a new-trial motion is warranted.” (¶ 21)
“But the Ohio Supreme Court has recently held where the movant is asserting a Brady claim in a motion for a new trial, the defendant is “not required to show that he could not have discovered the suppressed evidence by exercising reasonable diligence[,] but instead a defendant satisfies the ‘unavoidably prevented’ requirement * * * by establishing that the prosecution suppressed the evidence on which the defendant [now] relies.”” (¶ 28)
Factual background
Howard was convicted for the aggravated murders of Gino Booker and Tim Canady, among related offenses, based principally on testimony from Carlos and Eugene Jackson. In 2018, a public-records request produced previously undisclosed materials concerning the Booker murder, including fingerprints associated with Michael Thompson and a photographic lineup in which witness Britney Kelley identified someone other than Howard as the shooter. The state also destroyed or could not locate physical evidence that Howard sought to have tested through postconviction DNA testing. Howard relied on these materials in his delayed Crim.R. 33(B) motions, asserting newly discovered evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and a Brady violation.
Procedural history
Howard was convicted of aggravated murder and related offenses arising from the murders of Gino Booker, Tim Canady, and Keith Redding and received an aggregate sentence of 148 years to life. In an earlier appeal, the convictions relating to Redding were reversed, while the Booker and Canady convictions were affirmed. Howard later filed motions for leave to file delayed new-trial motions based on newly discovered evidence and alleged suppression of exculpatory evidence. The common pleas court denied the 2019 and 2020 motions together on the merits without first deciding whether Howard was unavoidably prevented from discovering or presenting the grounds and without conducting an evidentiary hearing.
Remand instructions
The Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas must reconsider Howard's 2020 motion for leave under the unavoidable-prevention standard, determine whether he was unavoidably prevented from timely discovering the evidence or filing the new-trial motion, and conduct an evidentiary hearing on the 2019 Crim.R. 33(B) motion for leave to determine whether the evidence was suppressed and whether Howard was unavoidably prevented from discovering it.