State v. Tiedjen

Citations

• 2019 Ohio 2430

Syllabus

Motion for leave motion for new trial newly discovered evidence missing evidence App.R. 9 sua sponte Brady violation expert witness testimony res judicata. Denial of defendant's motion for leave to file motion for new trial reversed. Defendant filed a motion based on newly discovered photographs that allegedly show that the police manipulated crime-scene photographs from the 1989 murder and that the police, the prosecutor, or both withheld it from discovery. Court properly found that the evidence was newly discovered, but erred by failing to find that defendant was unavoidably prevented from discovering the photographs. Court also abused its discretion by excluding expert testimony regarding whether the photographs were exculpatory and material. However, the parties concede that the newly discovered photographs are missing from the appellate record. Compliance with App.R. 9 is impossible without the missing photographs or copies of the photographs. Without the missing evidence, this court cannot conduct a meaningful appellate review of whether defendant should receive a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Case remanded under State v. Jones, 71 Ohio St.3d 293, 643 N.E.2d 547 (1994), to determine whether defendant is substantially responsible for the missing evidence.