State v. Long

Citations

• 2023 Ohio 132

Syllabus

NEW TRIAL – BRADY V. MARYLAND – COUNSEL – ACTUAL INNOCENCE The common pleas court did not err by denying defendant's motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, including witnesses' pretrial identification statements that defendant claimed demonstrated a due-process violation under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963): the evidence submitted by defendant, when considered in context with the complete witnesses' pretrial identification statements and the evidence presented at trial of defendant's guilt, including defendant's denim shorts stained with the victim's blood found at the crime scene, did not undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial, and thus did not satisfy the materiality component of a due-process violation under Brady. The common pleas court did not abuse its discretion (1) by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on defendant's motion for a new trial based on defendant's claim of actual innocence where defendant did not demonstrate substantive grounds for relief or (2) by denying defendant's new-trial motion based on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel where trial counsel's performance was not deficient and where defendant failed to demonstrate how the outcome of his trial would have been different but for his counsel's alleged ineffectiveness.