[Cite as State v. Reese, 2024-Ohio-2013.]

Atty. Gina DeGenova, Mahoning County Prosecutor, and Atty. Ralph M. Rivera, 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Mahoning County Prosecutor's Office, for PlaintiffAppellee and

Lamar Reese, Pro se, Defendant-Appellant.

Dated: May 24, 2024

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

MAHONING COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

LAMAR REESE,

Defendant-Appellant.

OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

Case No. 14 MA 0116

Application for Reconsideration

BEFORE:

Mark A. Hanni, Cheryl L. Waite, Katelyn Dickey, Judges.

JUDGMENT:

Denied.
– 2 –

Case No. 14 MA 0116

PER CURIAM.

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Lamar Reese, has filed a Motion for Leave to File an 

Application for Reconsideration of this Court’s judgment in State v. Reese, 7th Dist. No. 

14 MA 116, 2016-Ohio-557. Because it is untimely and Appellant has not shown 

extraordinary circumstances, Appellant’s motion is denied. 

{¶2} A motion for reconsideration must be filed within ten days of the judgment. 

App.R. 26(A)(1)(a). Our judgment in this case was filed on February 10, 2016. Appellant 

did not file his motion for reconsideration until March 11, 2024. Thus, appellant’s motion 

was clearly untimely. 

{¶3} App.R. 14(B) provides:

For good cause shown, the court, upon motion, may enlarge or reduce the 

time prescribed by these rules or by its order for doing any act, or may 

permit an act to be done after the expiration of the prescribed time. The 

court may not enlarge or reduce the time for filing a notice of appeal or a 

motion to certify pursuant to App. R. 25. Enlargement of time to file an 

application for reconsideration or for en banc consideration pursuant to App. 

R. 26(A) shall not be granted except on a showing of extraordinary 

circumstances.

(Emphasis added).

{¶4} Thus, per the Appellate Rules, an appellate court may permit an act to be 

done after the expiration of the prescribed time when good cause is shown. But this 

standard does not apply to motions for reconsideration. An appellate court only has the 

authority to grant leave to file a delayed motion for reconsideration if there is a showing 

of extraordinary circumstances. 

{¶5} Appellant has not asserted any extraordinary circumstances here. 

Appellant contends that we should allow him to file a late application for reconsideration 

because the Ohio Supreme Court issued an opinion, subsequent to our opinion in this 

case, that invalidated our holding. That case, Appellant claims, is State v. Grate, 164 

Ohio St.3d 9, 2020-Ohio-5584, 172 N.E.3d 8.
– 3 –

Case No. 14 MA 0116

{¶6} Firstly, even if the Grate decision did invalidate this Court’s decision, Grate

was released on December 10, 2020. Appellant did not file his request for leave until 

March 11, 2024. Appellant makes no attempt to explain why he waited over three years 

to raise this claim.

{¶7} Secondly, Grate did not invalidate our decision in this case. In Grate, the 

Ohio Supreme Court examined whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to 

present testimony at the mitigation phase of a capital murder trial regarding diffusetensor-imaging and functional-MRI-neuroimaging results. The Court made some general 

statements about the trial court exercising a gatekeeping function in the admissibility of 

scientific evidence and Grate not presenting evidence to support the reliability of the 

proposed tests. Id. at ¶ 92, 96. 

{¶8} In Reese, Appellant argued polygraph results did not meet Evid.R. 702's 

requirements for admissibility because the State failed to establish the general scientific 

reliability of a polygraph test. Reese, 2016-Ohio-557, at ¶ 23. We determined that the 

State met the four conditions set out by the Ohio Supreme Court for the admissibility of 

polygraph test results. Id. at ¶ 37. Additionally, we found that because “a polygraph test 

is not viewed as scientifically reliable, the state, in this case, could not have put forth 

evidence of the general scientific reliability of a polygraph test as appellant asserts it 

should have done in order to comply with Evid.R. 702(C).” Id. at ¶ 36. We further 

reasoned that because a polygraph test is not generally viewed as scientifically reliable,

polygraph results are only admissible upon stipulation by the parties. Id., citing State v. 

Davis, 62 Ohio St.3d 326, 341, 581 N.E.2d 1362 (1991).

{¶9} The Grate opinion did not involve a polygraph test. And this Court made 

clear in Reese, that polygraph tests are not generally scientifically reliable and are only 

admissible if the parties stipulate to admit them. There is nothing in Grate that invalidates 

our decision in Reese. Thus, Appellant has failed to demonstrate the extraordinary 

circumstances required for leave to file a delayed application for reconsideration.
– 4 –

Case No. 14 MA 0116

{¶10} For these reasons, Appellant’s motion is hereby denied.

JUDGE MARK A. HANNI

JUDGE CHERYL L. WAITE

JUDGE KATELYN DICKEY

NOTICE TO COUNSEL

This document constitutes a final judgment entry.