Court Opinion

ID: 9956307
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-01 19:07:57.168265+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:49.097158
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Cook, 2024-Ohio-1242.]

                      IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                          THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                               UNION COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,
                                                          CASE NO. 14-23-36
         PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

    v.

CHRISTOPHER G. COOK,                                      OPINION

         DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

                  Appeal from Union County Common Pleas Court
                           Trial Court No. 2017-CR-0249

                                      Judgment Affirmed

                              Date of Decision: April 1, 2024

APPEARANCES:

         Alison Boggs for Appellant

         Melissa A. Chase for Appellee
Case No. 14-23-36

WALDICK, J.

       {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Christopher G. Cook (“Cook”), brings this appeal

from the October 5, 2023 judgment of the Union County Common Pleas Court

denying his motion for a new trial. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

                           Facts and Procedural History

       {¶2} On May 15, 2019, a Union County jury found Cook guilty of three

counts of Rape, one count of Disseminating Matter Harmful to Juveniles, one count

of Gross Sexual Imposition, and one count of Intimidation of an Attorney, Victim,

or Witness in a Criminal Case. The three rape charges were based on allegations

that Cook had induced two adult women, Jacquelyn Tackett and Jessica Jude, to

engage in sexual conduct with his then ten-year-old son, C.C., on several occasions

in 2014. Cook was convicted on the other three counts as a principal offender.

       {¶3} On July 3, 2019, Cook was sentenced to an aggregate term of 82 years

to life in prison.

       {¶4} Cook thereafter filed a direct appeal. On June 22, 2020, in State v.

Cook, 3d Dist. Union No. 14-19-26, 2020-Ohio-3411, this Court affirmed the

judgment of conviction and sentence entered against Cook.

       {¶5} On September 18, 2020, Cook filed a petition for postconviction relief

in the trial court. On March 18, 2021, the trial court denied that petition without a

hearing.

                                         -2-
Case No. 14-23-36

In State v. Cook, 3d Dist. Union No. 14-21-09, 2022-Ohio-97, appeal not allowed,

166 Ohio St.3d 1509, 2022-Ohio-1687, this Court affirmed the trial court’s denial

of the postconviction petition.

       {¶6} On September 8, 2023, Cook filed a pro se motion in the trial court,

seeking a new trial pursuant to Crim.R. 33. In that motion, Cook asserted that he

was entitled to a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence, being the

affidavits of two potential witnesses, Jacquelyn Tackett and her mother, Laura Self.

In support of his motion, Cook attached the affidavits of Tackett and Self, claiming

that the affidavits called into question the prosecution’s theory of the case at trial

and that the testimony of those two witnesses would have changed the outcome of

the trial. Cook acknowledged that his motion was filed more than 120 days after

the verdict in the case, which is the deadline set by Crim.R. 33 for such motions.

However, Cook asserted that the delay in filing the motion was justifiable, as he was

unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence within 120 days of the verdict

due to his incarceration and the fact that his defense attorney delayed the release of

the discovery file to Cook until after those 120 days had expired.

       {¶7} In the first affidavit attached to Cook’s motion, Jacquelyn Tackett

averred she would have testified at trial that she had never been alone with C.C.,

with or without his father; that C.C. had never been in her bedroom; that she had

not seen C.C. since August of 2014, when her brother and Cook were present; that

during the time of the supposed incident, she had not seen Cook in four months; that

                                         -3-
Case No. 14-23-36

she was in Westerville, Ohio for Christmas Eve and Christmas Day with her family

that year; and that her mother came home to Kenton with her on Christmas Eve to

open presents. In the second affidavit, Laura Self asserted that her daughter,

Jacquelyn Tackett, was with Self and others in Columbus, Ohio for Christmas Eve

of 2014; that Tackett stayed at Self’s apartment in Westerville for Christmas Day;

that Self followed Tackett to her home in Kenton to open presents on Christmas

evening; and that the two times Tackett met C.C. in Raymond, Ohio, Self was

present, along with Cook, his mother, and his grandmother.

       {¶8} On October 5, 2023, the trial court filed a judgment entry denying the

motion for a new trial. In its decision, the trial court noted that Cook’s motion was

filed more than 120 days after the verdict was rendered but the motion alleged that

Cook was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence upon which the

new trial motion was based. The trial court found that Cook’s motion failed to

support the claim that he was unavoidably prevented from discovery of the

purported new evidence within the 120-day time limit, and that the record reflected

Cook had knowledge prior to trial of the evidence at issue. The trial court therefore

denied Cook’s motion.

       {¶9} On November 2, 2023, Cook filed the instant appeal, in which he raises

one assignment of error for our review.

                                          -4-
Case No. 14-23-36

                                Assignment of Error

       The trial court abused its discretion denying appellant’s motion
       for a new trial based on the merits, pursuant to Criminal Rule
       33(B).

                                       Analysis

       {¶10} Motions for a new trial are governed by Crim.R. 33, which provides

in relevant part:

       (A) Grounds. A new trial may be granted on motion of the defendant
       for any of the following causes affecting materially the defendant’s
       substantial rights:

       (1) Irregularity in the proceedings, or in any order or ruling of the
       court, or abuse of discretion by the court, because of which the
       defendant was prevented from having a fair trial;

       (2) Misconduct of the jury, prosecuting attorney, or the witnesses for
       the state;

       (3) Accident or surprise which ordinary prudence could not have
       guarded against;

       (4) That the verdict is contrary to law;

       (5) Error of law occurring at the trial;

       (6) When new evidence material to the defense is discovered which
       the defendant could not with reasonable diligence have discovered
       and produced at the trial. When a motion for a new trial is made upon
       the ground of newly discovered evidence, the defendant must produce
       at the hearing on the motion, in support thereof, the affidavits of the
       witnesses by whom such evidence is expected to be given, and if time
       is required by the defendant to procure such affidavits, the court may
       postpone the hearing of the motion for such length of time as is
       reasonable under all the circumstances of the case. The prosecuting
       attorney may produce affidavits or other evidence to impeach the
       affidavits of such witnesses.

                                          -5-
Case No. 14-23-36

       (B) Motion for New Trial; Form, Time. Application for a new trial
       shall be made by motion which, except for the cause of newly
       discovered evidence, shall be filed within fourteen days after the
       verdict was rendered, or the decision of the court where a trial by jury
       has been waived, unless it is made to appear by clear and convincing
       proof that the defendant was unavoidably prevented from filing his
       motion for a new trial, in which case the motion shall be filed within
       seven days from the order of the court finding that the defendant was
       unavoidably prevented from filing such motion within the time
       provided herein.

       Motions for new trial on account of newly discovered evidence shall
       be filed within one hundred twenty days after the day upon which the
       verdict was rendered, or the decision of the court where trial by jury
       has been waived. If it is made to appear by clear and convincing proof
       that the defendant was unavoidably prevented from the discovery of
       the evidence upon which he must rely, such motion shall be filed
       within seven days from an order of the court finding that he was
       unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence within the one
       hundred twenty day period.

       {¶11} “Accordingly, a party may not seek a new trial on the basis of newly

discovered evidence after the 120-day time limit unless he can demonstrate that he

was unavoidably prevented from discovering the new evidence within the time

limit.” State v. Keith, 192 Ohio App.3d 231, 2011-Ohio-407, ¶ 39 (3d Dist.). “‘A

party is “unavoidably prevented” from filing a motion for a new trial if the party

had no knowledge of the existence of the ground supporting the motion and could

not have learned of that existence within the time prescribed for filing the motion in

the exercise of reasonable diligence.’” Id., quoting State v. Lee, 10th Dist. Franklin

No. 05AP-229, 2005-Ohio-6374, ¶ 8. “In order to be able to file a motion for a new

trial based on newly discovered evidence beyond the 120 days prescribed in the

                                         -6-
Case No. 14-23-36

above rule, a petitioner must first file a motion for leave, showing by ‘clear and

convincing proof that he has been unavoidably prevented from filing a motion in a

timely fashion.’” Id. at ¶ 40, quoting State v. Graham, 3d Dist. Hancock No. 5-05-

13, 2006-Ohio-352, ¶ 10.

       {¶12} Finally, in reviewing a trial court’s denial of a motion for leave to file

a delayed motion for a new trial, an appellate court applies an abuse of discretion

standard. State v. Bender, 3d Dist. Union No. 13-22-23, 2023-Ohio-1531, ¶ 10,

citing State v. McNeal, 169 Ohio St.3d 47, 2022-Ohio-2703, ¶ 13. An abuse of

discretion suggests that a decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.

State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157-158, 404 N.E.2d 144 (1980).

       {¶13} In the instant case, Cook asserts on appeal that the motion for a new

trial was not properly before the trial court because Cook had not first filed a motion

for leave to file an untimely motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered

evidence. Based on that premise, Cook argues that the trial court abused its

discretion because it overruled the new trial motion on the merits. Cook asserts that

the trial court’s judgment must be reversed, and the case remanded in order to permit

the filing of a motion for leave to file a delayed new trial motion.

       {¶14} We find Cook’s argument to lack merit. While Cook did caption the

motion at issue as a “Motion for New Trial Pursuant to Crim.R. 33(A)(6), Newly

Discovered Evidence”, it is clear from the content of Cook’s motion that he was

seeking leave to file an untimely motion for a new trial pursuant to the standard for

                                         -7-
Case No. 14-23-36

the same set forth in Crim.R. 33(B). Specifically, we note that Cook asserted he

was unavoidably prevented from discovering the purported new evidence within

120 days of the verdict because he had been incarcerated and because his attorney

did not release the discovery file to Cook until after the 120 days had expired.

       {¶15} It is equally clear from our review of the trial court’s decision on

Cook’s motion that the trial court construed the motion as one seeking leave to file

a delayed motion for a new trial. Although the trial did not expressly indicate in its

decision the manner in which the motion was being construed, the trial court

specifically set forth and applied the law governing review of motions for leave to

file delayed motions for a new trial. In denying Cook’s motion, the trial court noted

that the motion acknowledged it was being filed more than 120 days after the verdict

was rendered but that the motion alleged that Cook was unavoidably prevented from

the discovery of the evidence upon which the new trial motion was based. As the

motion was filed outside the time limit set forth in Crim.R. 33(B), the trial court

analyzed whether Cook had shown that he was unavoidably prevented from

discovering the evidence at issue. The trial court applied the proper legal standards

for the review of untimely motions, and found that Cook’s motion failed to support

the claim that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the “new evidence”.

       {¶16} We therefore move on consider if the trial court’s denial of Cook’s

motion on the basis of its untimeliness was an abuse of discretion.

                                         -8-
Case No. 14-23-36

         {¶17} The jury verdicts finding Cook guilty in this case were returned on

May 15, 2019, but the new trial motion was not filed until September 8, 2023, well

beyond the 120–day limit under Crim.R. 33(B). Consequently, Cook was required

to show by clear and convincing proof that he had no knowledge of the “newly

discovered evidence” supporting the motion for a new trial and that he was

unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence within 120 days of the May

2019 verdict.

         {¶18} Cook failed to meet that burden. Even accepting the newly discovered

evidence as true, the affidavits attached to Cook’s motion do not on their face

support his claim that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence

contained therein, nor do Cook’s general assertions in the motion itself support that

claim.

         {¶19} In his motion, the only explanation provided by Cook for the nearly 4-

year filing delay was the general assertion that he had been incarcerated and that his

attorney did not turn over the discovery file to Cook in a timely fashion. Cook failed

to allege or explain how his incarceration may have impacted his discovery of the

evidence at issue, nor did he explain what relevance the pretrial discovery file had

on the delay in seeking to file for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered

evidence.

         {¶20} Additionally, the “newly discovered evidence” supporting Cook’s

motion for a new trial was the information set forth in the affidavits of the two

                                          -9-
Case No. 14-23-36

potential witnesses, Jacquelyn Tackett and Laura Self. While Cook claimed in his

motion that those witnesses, and the information to which they would have testified,

was newly discovered, that claim is refuted by the record. In that regard, we note

that Jacquelyn Tackett was a co-defendant of Cook’s, and was alleged and then

proven to be one of the principal offenders in the rape charges of which Cook was

found guilty by way of complicity. Because of that, Tackett’s name and her

potential relevance to the case was disclosed to the defense in discovery well before

this case came to trial. Any information or knowledge helpful to Cook that was

purportedly possessed by Tackett and, by extension, her mother, since 2014, could

have been discovered by Cook through the exercise of reasonable diligence within

the time prescribed for filing motions for a new trial.

       {¶21} Most importantly, we take note of information contained in an

affidavit by Cook that was submitted to the trial court on September 18, 2020, in

support of the petition for postconviction relief filed on that date. In that affidavit,

Cook averred that “[d]uring the course of my criminal case, I requested that my trial

counsel interview potential witnesses who would offer alibi testimony contradicting

the State’s witnesses[.]” (Emphasis added.) (Docket No. 132, Exhibit 1). In that

affidavit, Cook then stated, “I asked [trial counsel] to interview Laura Self,

Jacqueline’s mom, who was with Jackye when Jackye came to my house. At

Jackye’s house when [C.C.] and I came, her brother was there”; “I asked [counsel]

to interview Susan George[,] close friend of Laura Self, who spent Christmas Eve

                                         -10-
Case No. 14-23-36

with Laura Self, Jackye Tackett, and David Tackett and that Facebook postings

existed to verify where she was on Christmas Eve (and that it was not with me)”;

and that “I asked [counsel] to interview Jacqueline Tackett, with her counsel

present, as she would have told him that she was not home on a date alleged by the

victim, thereby casting doubt on his credibility[.]” (Id.). Thus, Cook’s own prior

sworn statement reflects that he had knowledge during the pendency of the case,

prior to trial, of the two witnesses and the evidence on which Cook now wishes to

base a new trial claim.

       {¶22} Accordingly, Cook’s new trial motion and the exhibits attached

thereto failed to demonstrate that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering

the “new evidence’ within 120 days of the verdict. For that reason, the trial court

did not abuse its discretion when it denied Cook’s motion on that basis.

       {¶23} The sole assignment of error is overruled.

                                    Conclusion

       {¶24} Having found no error prejudicial to the defendant-appellant,

Christopher Cook, in the particulars assigned and argued, the judgment of the

Common Pleas Court of Union County is affirmed.

                                                              Judgement Affirmed

ZIMMERMAN and MILLER, J.J., concur.

/hls

                                       -11-