State v. Sheppard, 231 Ohio App. 399 (1955) - Opinion on Newly Discovered Evidence Appeal
Appeal No. 23551
July 20, 1955
State v. Sheppard, Eighth District Court of Appeals Case No. 23551
Eighth District Court of Appeals, newly discovered evidence, Paul L. Kirk, blood evidence, forensic testing
"This is a separate appeal emanating from that cause on the sole ground that there is error in the record and proceedings in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County prejudicial to the rights of the defendant in overruling his motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence."
"The newly discovered evidence claimed by the defendant in this case was presented to the trial court in the affidavit of Dr. Paul Leland Kirk. The defendant, in effect, says that his claimed newly discovered evidence was gathered from the bedroom in which the murder was committed and from exhibits which had been admitted in evidence during the trial and, thereafter, put in the custody of the prosecuting attorney, where they were examined by Dr. Kirk on his visit here in January, 1955, together with experiments conducted by him in his laboratories at the University of California subsequent thereto.
Defendant, appellant herein, argues that he was prevented from making this investigation and performing these experiments in time for the trial because the state, through the Prosecuting Attorney of Cuyahoga County and the Chief of Police of Bay Village, retained possession and control of the premises until December 23, 1954, two days after the rendition of the verdict by the jury, when the keys to the home were turned over to the administrator of his murdered wife's estate, and that that was the first time after the murder that he was afforded access to the place."
The Court of Appeals found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sam Sheppard's motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
State v. Sheppard, 100 Ohio App. 399, 128 N.E.2d 504 (Ohio Ct. App. 1955)