Summary
This Ohio Supreme Court slip opinion addresses whether newly published scientific studies can constitute newly discovered evidence under Crim.R. 33(A)(6) to warrant a hearing on a motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial. The appellant, convicted of felonious assault and child endangering based on a medical expert's testimony that his infant son's fractures resulted from abuse, argued that subsequent research contradicted the expert's assertions about metabolic bone diseases and Vitamin D deficiency. The court reversed the lower courts' denial of the hearing and remanded the case for the trial court to evaluate whether the new studies meet the statutory standards for newly discovered evidence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a significant posttrial change in scientific knowledge concerning scientific evidence used to establish an element of a crime may constitute newly discovered evidence under Ohio Crim.R. 33(A)(6) and (B).
- What standard governs whether posttrial scientific developments are sufficiently significant to establish that a defendant was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence.
- Whether a defendant who makes a prima facie showing that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence is entitled to a hearing on a motion for leave to file an untimely motion for a new trial.
Holdings
- When scientific evidence provided substantial support for an element of a crime at trial, a significant posttrial change in scientific knowledge concerning that evidence may constitute newly discovered evidence under Crim.R. 33(A)(6) and (B).
- Grad's evidence made a prima facie showing that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence, so the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for leave without holding a hearing.
- The hearing on the motion for leave does not decide whether a new trial should ultimately be granted; the trial court must withhold a merits determination on the new-trial motion until leave is granted.
Key quotations
“A court must first evince a clear understanding of what the new scientific evidence shows. It must then compare that evidence to the level of similar-subject scientific evidence available at the time of trial.” (¶ 64)
“We agree with Grad that in cases in which scientific evidence provides substantial support for an element of a crime at trial, a significant posttrial change in the state of scientific knowledge concerning that evidence may constitute newly discovered evidence.” (¶ 70)
“At the very least, the trial court should have held a hearing on the motion for leave.” (¶ 82)
Factual background
Grad was convicted after his infant son, W.G., was found to have 26 fractures in various stages of healing. The State's causation evidence relied substantially, if not exclusively, on Dr. R. Daryl Steiner's differential-diagnosis methodology, under which he concluded that abuse was the cause after ruling out benign genetic and metabolic conditions. Years after trial, Grad presented four scientific studies, affidavits, updated family medical information, and evidence that genetic testing had become substantially less expensive, arguing that later scientific developments undermined Steiner's testimony concerning genetic disorders and Vitamin D-related bone disease.
Procedural history
Grad was convicted in the Medina County Court of Common Pleas of child-endangering and felonious-assault offenses and sentenced to 24 years in prison. His convictions and a postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance were affirmed by the Ninth District Court of Appeals, and this court previously declined jurisdiction. The trial court later denied Grad's motion for leave to file an untimely new-trial motion without a hearing; the Ninth District affirmed, and the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed and remanded for a hearing on the motion for leave.
Remand instructions
Reverse the judgment of the Ninth District Court of Appeals and remand the cause to the trial court to hold a hearing on Grad's motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial.