State of Ohio - Court Rejects Attempt to Vacate Conviction Based on Victim’s Revelation Years Later. Published by: Court News Ohio (CNO), written by Dan Trevas, January 18, 2024.
The Supreme Court of Ohio today rejected a man’s effort to vacate his attempted murder conviction. The man’s claim was based on the victim stating seven years after the conviction that he might have misidentified who shot him.
In a 4-3 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Eighth District Court of Appeals, which had upheld a Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court decision not to grant a request for a hearing sought by Eric Johnson. The hearing was to determine whether Johnson was entitled to a new trial.
Johnson was convicted of the 2013 shooting of James Keith and is serving a 21-year prison sentence. In 2020, Johnson produced a sworn statement from Keith, stating Keith might have incorrectly identified Johnson as the shooter. The Court found Johnson failed to establish why it took seven years to discover Keith’s misgivings.
Writing for the Court majority, Justice Joseph T. Deters explained that R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(a) required Johnson to demonstrate he was “unavoidably prevented,” not merely “prevented,” from discovering Keith’s uncertainty about his testimony. Justice Deters wrote that Johnson does not attempt to explain in his petition when or how he was notified of Keith’s change of heart or what prevented the renunciation from being discovered earlier.
Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices Patrick F. Fischer and R. Patrick DeWine joined Justice Deters’ opinion.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Michael P. Donnelly wrote that Johnson was at least entitled to a trial court hearing to determine whether Keith’s statement provided grounds for vacating Johnson’s sentence. Keith may have been in fear of coming forward earlier, and any attempts by Johnson to contact Keith could have been viewed as an attempt to retaliate against or intimidate a witness, the dissent stated.
Justices Melody Stewart and Jennifer Brunner joined Justice Donnelly’s opinion.
###