Professional Documents
Culture Documents
O P I N I O N
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
GRADY, Judge.
that offense.
2
old Paris Talley died after she was placed in a microwave oven and
its power was turned on for approximately two minutes. The child’s
mother, Arnold, was charged more than one year later, in December
drinking, she was too intoxicated to have committed the crime. The
also explained that her statement expressed remorse for not taking
care to prevent someone else from committing the crime. The state
microwave.
nephew, put the baby in the microwave oven and turned it on. The
because she could not be located. M.Q. testified that he saw D.T.
connection with their defense that it was D.T., not defendant, who
put the baby in the microwave. Demetri Miles and Terry McDonald
would testify that D.T. told them he had placed the baby in the
preclude the defense from doing that because, being aware that D.T.
instead proffered.
first trial that defendant had admitted that she had put her baby
Miles and Terry McDonald that police and prosecutors had coerced
them into recanting their statements concerning what D.T. had told
83, 87.
granted, (2) has been discovered since the trial, (3) is such as
before the trial, (4) is material to the issues, (5) is not merely
(1987), 43 Ohio App.3d 87, we held that while Petro “stands for the
a new trial, Petro does not establish a per se rule excluding newly
sic.) Id., syllabus. See also State v. McConnell, 170 Ohio App.3d
800, 2007-Ohio-1181.
the first trial. Her testimony, which was recorded by video, was
about March 27, 2007, they had a conversation concerning the death
also left the house. When she later returned, defendant went to
sleep. She was awakened by the father’s cries that Paris Talley
7
{¶ 16} “Yeah, I asked her did she do it. And she told me that –
first, she said she didn’t remember. And then on the second
occasion, she told me then. She put the baby in the microwave and
again about the matter early the following morning, when defendant
defendant “said that she had put her baby in the microwave, and I
asked her, I said, how’d you - did she - I said, how did you get
her in there? She said, she fit right in. I got really furious
told Williams she turned the microwave on and “left out the door.
Williams asked her how did she get (the baby) in the microwave.
killing her child. She replied that defendant “said that her kids’
father said that if the baby wasn’t his, that he was leaving her.”
Williams added that defendant “was more concerned about the baby
not being his than anything in the world. That’s what she was more
8
concerned about.”
that she put her baby in the microwave, telling Detective Galbraith
that defendant didn’t know what had happened to her child. Some
admissions that she put her baby in the microwave. When asked why
and defendant had become close and that she had later revealed
that Paris Talley was killed what had happened to the baby.
Williams said that when she was asked whether defendant said
anything else, she “told them no.” When asked whether there is
“anything else about this case you know,” Williams replied, “No,
filed a motion for a new trial. The motion averred that Linda
Williams had on that date called counsel for defendant from the
Montgomery County jail, saying that she was “ready to tell the
{¶ 22} “1. I have interviewed Linda Williams this day and the
those matters were discovered since the trial and could not in the
State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505. However, and with regard to
the motion for that reason, but it did not. Instead, the court
10
“true,” and that defendant said she couldn’t remember what had
admissions that defendant had put her baby in the microwave because
Williams was frightened of them and “just told them * * * what they
wanted to hear.” Williams said she was frightened that she would
Williams testified that defendant never said she put her baby in
the microwave.
or not.” Williams then backed off that assertion and said that
office investigator told her not to speak with defense counsel when
a meeting was arranged prior to her trial testimony, but also said,
Arnold’s family was bothering” her, but then also said, “No, I
testified that his office had paid for secure housing for Williams
and her children when she was the subject of threats following her
trial testimony, from March 4 to April 23, 2008. When the threats
assistance with her first month’s rent and a security deposit for
and could not be located to testify at the second trial, though she
phone when she returned to Dayton the month prior to the second
trial but wouldn’t say where she was. Williams promised several
{¶ 30} “On a motion for new trial based upon grounds of newly
crime.
{¶ 32} We cannot find that the trial court abused its discretion
Williams could not say whether she had ever related those
admissions to police and prosecutors, and she said that there were
overruled.
McDonald attributed to D.T., that it was D.T. who had put Paris
{¶ 35} Had the state called D.T. as its witness to rebut M.Q.’s
testimony that he saw D.T. put the baby in the microwave, defendant
1
The record does not reflect D.T.’s age. The parties
suggested at oral argument that he was approximately ten to 12
years of age when the alleged admissions were made.
15
that D.T. had allegedly made. Evid.R. 613(A). However, the state
did not call D.T. as its witness, foreclosing that opportunity for
{¶ 36} Had D.T. been called by the defense and, after waiving
the defense and the state were aware that D.T. had more recently
Defendant argues on appeal that the Evid.R. 607 bar should not
U.S. at 300. The Supreme Court pointed out that each of McDonald’s
Chambers’s due process right would also allow him to call the three
but was made at the same time to both Miles and McDonald. Neither
came into play, because neither the state nor defendant ever called
D.T. as a witness, and defendant was therefore not denied her right
truth of the matter and there is some indication that the witness’s
the court calls a witness on its own motion, a party need not
37, 322 N.E.2d 804. Further, the witness may be impeached by prior
N.E.2d 401.
be relevant; that is, the evidence must have “any tendency to make
called, D.T. would deny both committing the crime with which
defendant was charged and that he had made the alleged admission to
22
D.T.’s anticipated testimony. The trial court did not abuse its
impermissible testimony.”
A. Linda Williams
for new trial that he was asked in January 2008 to locate Linda
Williams and that he had obtained an address for her from jail
Otto confirmed the address for Williams he had obtained from jail
that Williams told Otto that defendant Arnold had admitted killing
had been provided for many of the state’s witnesses and that “[i]t
the following day, January 11, 2008, the court ordered the state to
Otto called for police assistance. Williams, who was pregnant, was
discharged, Otto took her to a motel for her own safety. Early in
from March to April 23, 2008. During that time, on March 25, 2008,
Williams’s hotel expenses on and after April 23, 2008, because her
asked Otto for assistance in providing her first month’s rent and
Rion’s (defense counsel’s) office and get China out of jail.” Otto
for a new trial that she thereafter left Montgomery County, going
she used her food-stamp card but could not locate Williams on that
phone call from Williams, who said she had returned to Dayton and
Ware knew only that Williams’s last address was 76 Victor Avenue.
but she never did. Ware made no effort to find Williams during
to the subpoena she was served. The state moved to have Williams
trial played for the jury pursuant to Evid.R. 804(B)(1). That rule
the United States. Crawford v. Washington (2004), 541 U.S. 36, 124
from the hearing and the proponent of the declarant’s statement has
hearing, the court in the second trial found that Linda Williams
804(B)(1) motion, allowing the state to introduce and play for the
than “drive around the block to locate” Williams “fell short of the
than merely serving process on the witness: the proponent must make
{¶ 68} On August 20, 2008, the third day of trial, the court
return to Dayton on July 18, 2008. Based on that, the court issued
{¶ 69} We cannot find that the trial court abused its discretion
2008 trial. Williams cut off all her known contacts with Dayton by
telephoned Gary Ware on July 17, 2008, telling him that she’d
returned to Dayton, but wouldn’t say where she was. Neither did
Williams keep the appointments with Ware that she made. Ware did
30
nothing more to locate her at that time. However, even if that may
assignment of error, that the state should not have been permitted
Ohio St.3d 13. “A fair trial demands that the accused be tried on
was hearsay for the purpose for which it was offered in the second
trial, which was to prove that defendant admitted killing her baby.
The trial court admitted the evidence in the second trial pursuant
another hearing.
Id. at 57.
the facts, to protect the integrity of the justice system and the
St.3d 1.
witness.”
2
This statement appears in the version of Crim.R.16 that
became effective on July 1, 2010. It did not appear in the
prior version of the rule that was in effect during defendant’s
two trials. We necessarily apply that prior version to the
discovery issues herein. However, we believe that the policy
statement in the revised rule illustrates the policy of the
prior rule as well.
33
defendant asked the state for the names and addresses of witnesses
that location until she was assaulted by her boyfriend and was
inspection.”
that was her address on and after January 7, 2008. On January 11,
order, but it did not. Instead, the state continued to secrete the
the second trial was not vital to the state’s case, that other,
conviction.
Linda Williams that was known to them for at least several weeks
denied defendant her right to a fair trial when the court permitted
first trial.
B. Kyra Woods
is not subject to any requirement that the declarant may have been
against hearsay, Evid.R. 801, and several of the Evid.R. 803 and
804 exceptions, the court ruled that Woods would “not (be) allowed
expected testimony.
and Linda Williams shared a jail cell for about three days in March
2007, after Williams had left the cell she shared with defendant.
Woods said that Williams was angry with defendant for failing to
return Williams’s sexual favors. Woods also said that Williams was
concerned about the prison time she faced and “said she was going
whatever to see if she could get some charges (sic) tooken off.”
said that China was just like – she didn’t know what had happened.
just blanked out. And she (Defendant) just kept shrugging her
that China had said that she put the baby in the microwave,” Woods
replied: “No.”
comments made by Miss Williams to her are not inconsistent with the
[Evid.R.] 803.3.
{¶ 91} “So, for those reasons, the Court would exclude the
who said that Williams had likewise not told him of defendant’s
admissions that she had put had the baby in the microwave. Evid.R.
cumulative evidence.”
witnesses to prove the same fact. That Williams had made similar
testimony, which included nothing about what she had told Woods.
testimony involved.
Section 613.1.
2008. Williams said that she told Galbraith that defendant said
41
she didn’t know what had happened to her child, and that she,
error, that the trial court erred when it denied defendant’s motion
assignment of error.
evidence, but does not identify what that exculpatory evidence was.
determination of them.
convictions.”
Conclusion
Judgment reversed