State v. Hill

• Decision Date: 03 December 2018
• Docket Number: NO. 2016-T-0099,2016-T-0099
• Citation: 125 N.E.3d 158,2018 Ohio 4800
• Parties: STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Danny Lee HILL, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

125 N.E.3d 158

2018 Ohio 4800

STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Danny Lee HILL, Defendant-Appellant.

NO. 2016-T-0099

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Trumbull County.

Decided December 3, 2018

DIANE V. GRENDELL, J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Danny Lee Hill, appeals the decisions of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas to deny his Motion for New Trial without hearing and to deny his Motion to Disqualify the Office of the Trumbull County Prosecutor. The issues before this court are whether a trial court may strike portions of a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence that exceeded the scope of the court's order granting leave to file the motion for new trial; whether the doctrines of res judicata and law of the case may be applied in analyzing the merits of a motion for new trial; whether a trial court must formally recognize evidence as newly discovered in its analysis of whether the evidence justifies the granting of a motion for new trial; whether an aggravated murder conviction may be sustained based solely on circumstantial evidence; whether a trial court errs in denying a motion for new trial without holding a hearing where the determinative issue turns on the probability of a different outcome at trial in the absence of certain evidence; whether a county prosecutor's office must be disqualified where defendant's former trial counsel takes a position with the office in the absence of actual prejudice; and whether a demonstration of the unreliability of bite mark evidence renders trial proceedings so fundamentally unfair as to deprive a defendant of due process. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the court below.

{¶ 2} On November 14, 2014, Hill filed a Request for Leave to File a Motion for New Trial pursuant to Ohio Criminal Rule 33(B). On November 20, 2014, the State filed its Response to Hill's Request, to which Hill filed a Reply on February 12, 2015. On May 14, 2015, Hill filed Supplemental Authority in Relation to his Request for Leave to File a Motion for New Trial.

{¶ 3} On May 22, 2015, Hill filed a Motion to Disqualify the Office of the Trumbull County Prosecutor. On June 16, 2015, the State filed its Response to Hill's Motion to disqualify, to which Hill filed a Reply on July 7, 2015.

{¶ 4} On December 21, 2015, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on Hill's Request for Leave, at the conclusion of which it orally denied the Motion to Disqualify the Office of the Trumbull County Prosecutor.

{¶ 5} On June 7, 2016, the trial court issued its Order on Petitioner's Request for Leave to File a Motion for New Trial pursuant to Ohio Criminal Rule 33(B). The court noted that on January 31, 1986, after a trial presided over by a three-judge panel, Hill was found guilty of Aggravated Murder in violation of R.C. 2903.01(B) with Specifications for Kidnapping, Rape, and Aggravated Arson (Count # 1); Kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01 (Count # 2); Rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02 (Count # 3); Aggravated Arson in violation of R.C. 2909.02 (Count # 4); and Felonious Sexual Penetration in violation of former R.C. 2907.12(A)(1) and (3) (Count # 6). The court further noted that, on March 5, 1986, Hill was sentenced to death for Aggravated Murder.¹

{¶ 6} Hill's convictions are based on the murder of Raymond Fife on September 10, 1985. The factual record is set forth in detail in State v. Hill , 11th Dist. Trumbull Nos. 3720 and 3745, 1989 WL 142761 (Nov. 27, 1989), and State v. Hill , 64 Ohio St.3d 313, 595 N.E.2d 884 (1992).

{¶ 7} The trial court determined, by clear and convincing evidence, that Hill was unavoidably prevented from filing his Motion for Leave within the one hundred twenty day period provided for by Criminal Rule 33. The court noted that "[t]he crux of Petitioner's argument for leave to file a motion for new trial * * * pivots on the scientific advances in forensic odontology made since 1986 that call into question the reliability of bite mark evidence presented in Hill's trial." In 2013, the American Board of Forensic Odontology established new guidelines for bite mark analysis which could not have been discovered by any amount of due diligence in 1986. Moreover, the court found that "the local and state Public Defender's Office had a conflict of interest in preparing and filing the motion for leave for a new trial" resulting in unavoidable further delay.

{¶ 8} On these grounds, the trial court granted Hill leave to file a motion for new trial.

{¶ 9} On June 13, 2016, Hill filed a Motion for New Trial. On July 5, 2016, the State filed its Response, to which Hill filed a Reply on July 19, 2016.

{¶ 10} On June 16, 2016, the State filed a Motion to Strike Defendant's Motion for New Trial. On June 27, 2016, Hill filed a Response

{¶ 11} On September 21, 2016, Hill filed Supplemental Authority and Renewed Motion for Evidentiary Hearing. On September 23, 2016, the State filed its Response, to which Hill filed a Reply on September 26, 2016.

{¶ 12} On October 3, 2016, the trial court issued its Order on Petitioner's Motion for Evidentiary Hearing on Motion for New Trial.

{¶ 13} With respect to the State's Motion to Strike, the trial court found that, in his June 13, 2016 Motion for New Trial, Hill "included issues that were never raised in his prior motion for leave to file a new trial motion." These issues included "the voluntariness of Hill's statements given to the Warren Police Department after the murder of Raymond Fife in 1985" and Dr. Adelman's testimony regarding "the stick or broomstick handle that was introduced by the State at Hill's trial." The court found these additional claims, "unilaterally added by Petitioner in his motion for new trial," to be redundant, impertinent, and immaterial under Civil Rule 12(F). Moreover, the court found "any further discussion of these claims * * * barred by the ‘law of the case ’ doctrine and ‘res judicata .’ " The court ordered these claims stricken.

{¶ 14} The trial court then considered whether Hill's newly discovered bite mark evidence, even if contradicting or impeaching prior trial testimony, "can serve as the basis for a new trial in this case," which question turned on "whether the bite mark evidence creates a ‘strong probability’ that there would be a different outcome in a future trial." Without conducting an evidentiary hearing on the issue, the court concluded that, "even if the bite mark evidence is excluded, considering the totality of the evidence against the Petitioner, particularly on the Kidnapping specification, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a ‘strong probability’ that there would be a different outcome if a new trial were granted in this case." In reaching its conclusion, the court noted that the "Ohio Supreme Court thoroughly reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence in this case when it affirmed the Petitioner's convictions," and the "majority of the Court's findings on sufficiency had nothing to do with the bite mark evidence."

{¶ 15} Accordingly, the trial court denied Hill's Motion for New Trial.

{¶ 16} On October 26, 2016, Hill filed a Notice of Appeal. On appeal, Hill raises the following assignments of error.

{¶ 17} "[1.] The trial court committed prejudicial and reversible error when it held it was precluded under the doctrines of res judicata and/or ‘law of the case’ from an independent review of the evidentiary record and/or an independent determination of the merits of Mr. Hill's motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, thus denying Mr. Hill due process of law in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution."

{¶ 18} "[2.] The trial court committed prejudicial error when it held that Mr. Hill's new evidence did not satisfy the requirements of State v. Petro because the bitemark evidence proffered by Mr. Hill did not create a ‘strong probability’ of a different result if Mr. Hill is granted a new trial thus denying Mr. Hill due process of law in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution."

{¶ 19} "[3.] The trial court committed prejudicial and reversible error when it failed to hold that Mr. Hill's bitemark evidence constituted ‘new evidence’ under Criminal Rule 33 and State v. Petro thus denying Mr. Hill due process of law in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution."

{¶ 20} "[4.] The trial court committed prejudicial and reversible error when it granted the State's Rule 12 motion to strike Mr. Hill's non-bitemark evidence based on an erroneous interpretation of State v. Petro and/or an inappropriate application of ‘law of the case’ and/or res judicata thus denying Mr. Hill due process of law in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution."

{¶ 21} "[5.] The trial court committed prejudicial and reversible error when it failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing before denying Mr. Hill's motion thus denying Mr. Hill due process of law in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution."

{¶ 22} "[6.] The trial court abused its discretion by not granting Mr. Hill's motion to disqualify the Trumbull County Prosecutor thus denying Mr. Hill due process of law in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution."

{¶ 23} "[7.] The trial court committed prejudicial and reversible error when it failed to consider and rule on Mr. Hill's argument that the fabricated expert evidence at his trial constituted a violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights."

{¶ 24} When considering an untimely motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, a trial court is required to engage in a "two-step process," first determining whether the motion should be allowed and then considering the merits thereof. State v. Elersic , 11th Dist. Geauga No....