Background
In February 2013, a man identified as R.N. was shot in a bar parking lot in Canton, Ohio. Before dying from his injuries, R.N. identified Samuel Woods as the shooter. Woods was indicted on murder, felonious assault, and related firearm charges. At trial in July 2013, multiple witnesses identified Woods as the perpetrator, and a jury convicted him on the murder and felonious assault counts. He was also found guilty on an additional firearm charge tried to the court. Woods’s convictions were affirmed on appeal in 2014.
In November 2024—more than a decade after his conviction—Woods filed a motion seeking permission to file a new trial motion based on what he claimed was newly discovered evidence. He submitted an affidavit from a witness identified as “Mary Roe,” who swore she was present at the shooting and witnessed Leroy Dixon (not Woods) standing with a gun in his hand immediately after the shooting. Roe stated she had never contacted law enforcement because she feared for her safety and did not know Woods had been charged with the crime.
Under Ohio Criminal Rule 33(B), new trial motions based on newly discovered evidence must normally be filed within 120 days of the verdict. Woods’s motion came 13 years late. To file such a motion after the deadline, he was required to show by clear and convincing proof that he had been “unavoidably prevented” from discovering the evidence within the 120-day period. The trial court denied his request for permission to file the late motion, and Woods appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed the trial court’s denial on both assignments of error. The court held that Woods failed to meet his burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering Mary Roe’s testimony within the 120-day deadline. “Unavoidably prevented” requires showing both that the defendant had no knowledge of the evidence and that he could not have discovered it even through reasonable diligence before the deadline expired.
The affidavit Woods submitted was inadequate for several reasons: it did not explain what investigative efforts Woods or his attorneys had undertaken to locate potential witnesses before or shortly after trial; it was unclear when or how Woods first contacted Roe; it failed to establish when Leroy Dixon died or connect his death to Roe’s newfound willingness to testify; and it provided no evidence that Roe could not reasonably have been located and interviewed with proper diligence. The court emphasized that “unavoidably prevented” does not mean evidence is undiscoverable simply because affidavits were not obtained sooner—attorneys must use reasonable efforts and foresight to procure evidence.
Regarding Woods’s second argument that the trial court should have held a hearing, the court held that no hearing is required when the submitted motion and affidavits do not establish prima facie evidence of unavoidable delay. A defendant is entitled to a hearing only if the documents demonstrate he was unavoidably prevented from timely discovering the evidence. Since Woods failed to meet that threshold burden, the trial court properly denied a hearing and could summarily reject his request.
Key Takeaways
- To file a new trial motion based on newly discovered evidence after the 120-day deadline under Criminal Rule 33(B), a defendant must present clear and convincing proof of unavoidable prevention—meaning no knowledge of the evidence and no way to discover it through reasonable diligence.
- An affidavit’s execution date does not prove when testimony became available; a movant must submit evidence of specific facts explaining why the affidavit could not have been obtained within the deadline.
- Courts review trial court denials of late new trial requests under the abuse-of-discretion standard, requiring reversal only when the court’s decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.
- No hearing is required on a motion for permission to file a delayed new trial motion when the supporting documents fail to establish prima facie evidence of unavoidable prevention.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces Ohio’s strict procedural requirements for defendants seeking to reopen criminal convictions through late new trial motions. The court’s analysis clarifies that “unavoidably prevented” requires more than simply failing to locate a witness earlier—it demands evidence that no knowledge of the witness existed and that the witness could not have been found through reasonable investigative effort. Defense counsel cannot rely on bare affidavits without explaining the diligence undertaken or circumstances preventing earlier discovery.
The decision also establishes that trial courts have discretion to summarily deny such motions without a hearing when the legal threshold is not met on the face of the motion and supporting documents. This approach filters out late motions that lack the requisite predicates before requiring judicial resources for evidentiary hearings. For attorneys representing defendants with potentially exculpatory evidence, the ruling emphasizes the importance of timely investigation, prompt affidavit procurement, and detailed explanation of any unavoidable obstacles to earlier discovery.