Court rejects man’s request for new trial

DAVE MOSIER/independent editor

The Ohio Third District Court of Appeals has denied yet another appeal of a man originally convicted of rape and gross sexual imposition nine years ago in Van Wert County Common Pleas Court.

Gregory Bradley was sentenced to 15 years to life after his conviction by a jury on the rape charge and five years in prison on the GSI count on July 9, 2009. The sentences were to run concurrently.

Following his conviction, Bradley immediately appealed his sentence, but his conviction was affirmed by the Third District Court of Appeals in November 2010. Since then, Bradley has filed a number of other petitions for post-conviction relief, all of which have been denied both by the trial court and the appellate court.

On December 21, 2017, Bradley filed a motion for a new trial in the local Common Pleas Court, which was denied January 29 of this year.

Bradley then filed an appeal of that decision to the Third District Court of Appeals.

In a decision written by Judge William R. Zimmerman, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision and denied Bradley’s claim that the trial court erred by ruling that Bradley’s request for a new trial does not comply with Ohio evidence rules.

Judge Zimmerman noted that the trial court can grant a new trial under any of the following circumstances:

Irregularity in the proceedings, or in any order or ruling of the court, or abuse of discretion by the court that prevented a defendant from having a fair trial.

Misconduct of the jury, prosecuting attorney, or witnesses for the state.

Accident or surprise that ordinance prudence could not have guarded against.

A verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence or is contrary to law (if the evidence shows a defendant is not guilty of the crime of which he was convicted, but guilty of a lesser crime, the court may modify the original conviction).

Error of law occurring at the trial.

New evidence crucial to the defense is discovered that a defendant could not have discovered and produced during his or her trial.

In dismissing two of Bradley’s claims, Judge Zimmerman’s decision noted that there was no affidavit filed by Bradley in support of his motion for a new trial, which is required under Ohio Criminal Rule 33 (A)(2) and (3), which the appellant cited in his request for a new trial.

Judge Zimmerman did note that the trial court may grant a new trial if new evidence is discovered that could not have been produced at his original trial. He noted though, “a trial court should not grant a new trial ‘unless it affirmatively appears from the record that the defendant was prejudiced by one of the grounds stated in the rule, or was thereby prevented from having a fair trial’.”

The rule also includes a time limit in which a defendant must file a motion for a new trial in the absence of new evidence within 14 days after the verdict was handed down, while motions on account of newly discovered evidence must be filed within 120 days of the rendering of the verdict.

Zimmerman said Bradley had failed to identify and produce any newly discovered evidence that would provide cause for filing a motion for a new trial, and noted that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bradley’s motion for a new trial.

Zimmerman then overruled Bradley’s request for a new trial.

Judges John Willamowski and Stephen Shaw concurred with the decision.