STATE OF OHIO VS. MATTHEW
Ohio Supreme Court
NOTICE:
The opinions posted here are subject to revision by the court prior to their publication in the bound court reporters. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Ohio Supreme Court.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE v. MATTHEWS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Ohio, Appellant, v. Matthews, Appellee.
[Cite as State v. Matthews (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Criminal procedure — Final order — Appeal — Pursuant to R.C. 2505.02 and 2505.03(A), a trial court’s order granting defendant new trial in a criminal case is a final appealable order that the state may appeal by leave of court.
Pursuant to R.C. 2505.02 and 2505.03(A), a trial court’s order granting the defendant a new trial in a criminal case is a final appealable order which the state may appeal by leave of court. (State v. Huntsman [1969], 18 Ohio St.2d 206, 47 O.O.2d 440, 249 N.E.2d 40, no longer applicable.)
(No. 96-1576 — Submitted December 2, 1997 — Decided April 15, 1998.)
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 70587.
On October 16, 1989, shortly after 2:30 a.m., Wayne Price was shot at the King-Kennedy housing project in Cleveland. Theodore Roulette, a drug user at the time, had gone to the King-Kennedy housing project on that same day to get some syringes. Roulette testified that he observed defendant-appellee Rasheem Matthews standing four to six feet from Price before the shooting. Roulette saw Price fall after being shot. Roulette identified defendant as the person who murdered Wayne Price.
In March 1990, Roulette was arrested for theft and incarcerated in the Cleveland Jail. While in jail, Roulette met Billy Price, brother of the victim, who encouraged Roulette to give a statement to the police regarding the murder of Wayne Price. Roulette went to the Cleveland Police Department and gave them a complete statement that he had witnessed the murder.
Charles Neal Paxton, a cellmate of defendant’s, testified that defendant told him that he shot and killed the victim, Price, because the defendant had given Price some drugs on credit and later found out that Price had been bad-mouthing him. Paxton gave a written statement of the defendant’s admission on May 10, 1990.
After trial, the jury was unable to reach a verdict, and the court declared a mistrial on June 22, 1990. At retrial on August 3, 1990, the defendant was convicted of the murder of Wayne Price. Defendant was sentenced on August 7, 1990. Defendant filed an appeal on September 5, 1990, and a motion for a new trial on November 27, 1990, which was denied on December 12, 1990. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion for new trial on January 7, 1991.
On April 19, 1991, the defendant filed a motion in the trial court claiming the discovery of new exculpatory evidence, seeking an order finding that he had been unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence, and again requesting a new trial. This motion was denied on July 1, 1991, but defendant did not appeal this denial.
On June 1, 1992, the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals affirmed defendant’s conviction and the denial by the trial court of his first motion for a new trial. 80 Ohio App.3d 409, 609 N.E.2d 574. This court declined to review defendant’s appeal. State v. Matthews (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 1440, 600 N.E.2d 683.
On July 16, 1992, the defendant again moved the trial court for an order finding that he had been unavoidably prevented from discovering new evidence, again requesting a new trial. This motion was denied on September 25, 1992. In June 1995, defendant filed another motion claiming more new evidence and again seeking a new trial.
This final motion for a new trial alleged that the Assistant County Prosecuting Attorney failed to disclose to defense counsel a secret deal with one of the state’s principal witnesses, Charles Paxton. Defendant claimed that the failure to disclose the secret deal with Paxton resulted in prejudice to defendant, since his counsel was not able to attack Paxton’s credibility in front of the jury by establishing that Paxton had been promised something for his testimony.
On April 2, 1996, the trial court granted defendant’s motion for a new trial. The state filed a motion for leave to appeal in the court of appeals. On May 28, 1996, the court of appeals denied the state’s motion, stating, "Motion by appellant for leave to appeal pursuant to R.C. 2945.67 is denied."
This cause is now before this court upon the allowance of a discretionary appeal.
 Home |
| State vs. Matthew |
| Dismissed Page 1 |
| Affidavit 1 |
| To Make a Donation |
| Evidence Pages |
Send E-Mail to: innocenttruth@aol.comCopyright © 2004 Innocenttruth Project. All Rights Reserved