State v. Mathews

2025 Ohio 195

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 24, 2025
• Docket: 2024-CA-2
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Mathews, 2025-Ohio-195.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT CHAMPAIGN COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO : : Appellee : C.A. No. 2024-CA-2 : v. : Trial Court Case No. 2021 CR 010 : JOSIAH MATHEWS : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas : Court) Appellant : :

...........

OPINION

Rendered on January 24, 2025

JEFFREY R. MCQUISTON, Attorney for Appellant

ANDREA K. BOYD, Attorney for Appellee

.............

EPLEY, P.J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Josiah Mathews appeals from a judgment of the

Champaign County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his post-conviction motion for

a new trial. For the reasons that follow, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

I. Facts and Procedural History -2-

{¶ 2} On October 24, 2011, Mathews entered the Urbana home of 87-year-old

Louis Taylor and brutally attacked him with a weapon – likely brass knuckles – causing

blunt force injuries to his head, face, and mouth. After the attack, Mathews stole several

items, including Taylor’s Jeep Liberty and wedding ring. Matthews fled the scene and left

Taylor for dead.

{¶ 3} The next day, when Taylor did not show up for his morning coffee at Tim

Horton’s, his friend Henry Baldwin went to Taylor’s home to check on him. When Baldwin

pulled into the driveway, he noticed that the garage door was wide open and that the door

from the garage into the house was ajar. He then went into the house, which seemed to

be empty. As he walked past a bathroom, he noticed some blood on the floor and the

sink. Baldwin testified that, when he continued into the living room, “there was blood all

over the couch, you know, where it had been, looked like he had been sitting there[.]”

Trial Tr. at 407. Photographs of the crime scene showed the couch soaked with blood in

multiple locations. Exhibit 1. Baldwin testified that, at that time, he did not go any further

into the house and left to take his wife to work.

{¶ 4} After dropping off his wife, Baldwin went back to Taylor’s house. He told the

jury that, this time, he entered through the side door of the garage and made his way to

the bedroom, where he found Taylor lying in bed, covered in blood. Baldwin could not talk

to Taylor “[b]ecause he was just mumbling or moaning, you know, breathing was real

shallow.” Trial Tr. at 411. Baldwin then called 911. First responders arrived soon after and

found Taylor mostly confused and unresponsive. Photographs showed open wounds on

the top and side of his head, dried blood all over his head, face, and neck, and a severely -3-

bruised and swollen right eye. Exhibit 5. Taylor was stabilized as much as possible and

then taken by Care Flight to the hospital. Several weeks later, he succumbed to his

injuries at a hospice facility.

{¶ 5} After the incident, Mathews left Urbana and went to his friend/drug dealer

Anthony Howard’s house in Springfield. Howard testified that when Mathews arrived, he

had been “excited,” showed him his hands, and reported that he had just “beat the fuck

out of somebody” and thought he had killed the victim. Howard Depo. at 17, 47. Howard

explained that Mathews’s hands looked like he had just gotten into a fight.

{¶ 6} Howard also testified that Mathews had wanted to get rid of the vehicle in

which Mathews had arrived. “[T]he vehicle that he wanted to get rid of was hot, as we

say. It was bad business. It was stolen. . . and I suggested to him to get rid of it if it was

associated with that situation.” Howard Depo at 20. Howard suggested that it would be in

Mathews’s best interest to clean up vehicle – remove any fingerprints – and get rid of it,

rather than sell it. Howard then provided Mathews with cleaning supplies.

{¶ 7} Howard’s house was not the only place Mathews stopped at after the

incident. Amanda Lewis, who lived a short distance from Taylor’s home, testified that

Mathews had been there on the night of October 24, 2011. Trial Tr. at 526-527, 1319-

1320. Police located a bloody towel in Lewis’s bathroom and Mathews’s clothing on top

of her vehicle.

{¶ 8} Other evidence also linked Mathews to Taylor’s murder. For instance, the

stolen Jeep Liberty, which had Mathews’s fingerprints on it, was recovered at the Long

John Silver’s on South Limestone Street in Springfield, which was right next door to the -4-

Super 8 Motel that Mathews checked into at 11:51 p.m. and stayed at on the night of the

murder. Trial Tr. at 582-586, 593-602, 617, 663. There was also evidence linking

Mathews to Taylor’s stolen wedding ring. Shawn Langford, a friend of Mathews, testified

that Mathews had asked him to pawn a wedding ring the day after the murder. Trial Tr. at

676-677, 789-794, 1347.

{¶ 9} Langford also noted that, before the murder, Mathews had told him that there

was a “lick he wanted to hit” (a robbery he wanted to do) in Urbana near Melvin Miller

Park, that it had to be done at night, and that he knew the person because he had done

odd jobs for him. Trial Tr. at 800-803, 824. Taylor lived near the park and Mathews had

previously done work for him. Langford further stated that he knew Mathews to own brass

knuckles, the suspected murder weapon in this case. Trial Tr. at 836.

{¶ 10} Cell phone evidence also implicated Mathews. Phone records showed that

Mathews’s phone was turned off from 7:43 p.m. until 10:50 p.m. on the night of October

24, and cell tower data placed him in the Urbana area in the hours before his phone was

turned off. When it was turned back on, the data indicated that Mathews had traveled to

Springfield. Evidence also indicated that Mathews had deleted his text messages from

October 16-26, 2011.

{¶ 11} Six days after the incident, Mathews was arrested on unrelated charges.

Mitzi Davis, a nurse at the jail, told the jury that when he was booked into the jail, Mathews

had dime-sized, scabbed-over abrasions on his hand and his right hand was swollen.

Trial Tr. at 634; Exhibit 8. The jail’s booking officer, Anthony Lyons, also noted that

Mathews had scrapes on both hands. -5-

{¶ 12} In addition to noting Mathews’s physical condition when he entered the jail

on October 30, law enforcement officers collected the personal property he had with him.

Deputies confiscated an LG cell phone, a multi-colored wallet, Mathews’s identification,

black string, and multiple rubber gloves. Trial Tr. at 1311; Exhibit 29.

{¶ 13} A decade after the murder, Mathews was indicted on charges related to

Taylor’s death, including: Count One, aggravated murder; Counts Two, Three, and Four,

murder; Count Five, aggravated robbery; Count Six, robbery; Count Seven, felonious

assault; Count Eight, grand theft of a motor vehicle; and Count Nine, tampering with

evidence.

{¶ 14} Before the trial, the parties stipulated and agreed to the admissibility and

authenticity of 23 exhibits, including, as pertinent to this appeal, Exhibit 9, “Booking

Assessment and Medical Records-Josiah Mathews October 30, 2011.” Stipulated

Exhibits Filing Jan. 7, 2022. Included in Exhibit 9, among other things, was the booking

form from the jail which listed items collected from Mathews when he was admitted into

the facility; however, gloves were not included on that form. The exhibit also included

notes from Lt. Josh Jacobs which stated: “Anthony Lyons – J.M. has scrapes on both

hands ‘they don’t look like they are fresh.’ ” The trial court admitted this evidence on the

first day of trial.

{¶ 15} After a lengthy trial which began on October 11, 2022, a jury found Mathews

not guilty of aggravated murder and murder in Count Two, but guilty of two counts of

murder (Counts Three and Four), aggravated robbery, robbery, felonious assault, theft of

a motor vehicle, and tampering with evidence. He was sentenced to an aggregate term -6-

of 25 years to life in prison.

{¶ 16} Mathews did not file a direct appeal, but on January 10, 2023, after a

corrections officer privately reached out to defense counsel, Mathews filed a motion for a

new trial, citing newly discovered evidence. He contended that a property inventory form,

which contained a list of items found on his person when he was booked into jail on

October 30, 2011, had not been discovered until after the trial. According to Mathews,

there was a discrepancy between evidence that was presented at trial – a property form

that included latex gloves – and information he received after trial from the corrections

officer – that there was a form that did not have gloves listed. He claimed that he had

been unaware of the form that did not mention the gloves until the officer told him about

it after the trial.

{¶ 17} After nearly a year of hearings and extensive briefing on the matter, the trial

court overruled Mathews’s motion for a new trial. This appeal followed.

II. Motion for a new trial

{¶ 18} In his first assignment of error, Mathews asserts that the trial court erred in

denying his motion for a new trial “in spite of clear evidence that the State failed to disclose

evidence . . . which constituted a Brady violation.” Appellant’s Brief at 4.

New trial based on Crim.R. 33(A)(6)

{¶ 19} To warrant the granting of a new trial based on newly discovered evidence

under Crim.R. 33(A)(6), it must be demonstrated that the new evidence (1) discloses a

strong probability that it will change the result if a new trial is granted; (2) has been

discovered since the original trial; (3) could not in the exercise of due diligence have been -7-

discovered before the trial; (4) is material to the issues; (5) is not merely cumulative to

former evidence; and (6) does not merely impeach or contradict the former evidence.

State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505 (1947), syllabus; State v. Hatton, 2022-Ohio-3991, ¶ 32.

Generally, the decision whether to grant a new trial is within the discretion of the trial

court, State v. Johnson, 2023-Ohio-1686, ¶ 23 (2d Dist.), but when the ruling is based on

alleged Brady violations, we review de novo because the inquiry is whether due process

was violated. State v. Smith, 2018-Ohio-4691, ¶ 24-25 (2d Dist.).

New trial based on Brady violations

{¶ 20} “Due process requires that the prosecution provide defendants with any

evidence that is favorable to them whenever that evidence is material either to their guilt

or punishment.” State v. Brown, 2007-Ohio-4837, ¶ 39, citing Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S.

83, 87 (1963). Evidence is material under Brady only if there is a “reasonable probability

that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would

have been different.” State v. Johnston, 39 Ohio St.3d 48 (1988), paragraph five of the

syllabus.

{¶ 21} When determining materiality, the question is not whether the defendant

would more likely than not have received a different verdict with the questioned evidence,

but “whether in its absence he received a fair trial, understood as a trial resulting in a

verdict worthy of confidence.” Brown at ¶ 40, quoting Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 434

(1995); State v. Bethel, 2022-Ohio-783, ¶ 19. It does not mean, however, that the

disclosure would have led to an acquittal. U.S. v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 111 (1976).

{¶ 22} Brady material must be turned over regardless of whether the defense -8-

makes the specific request. Id. at 111-112; Wortham v. Dayton, 2023-Ohio-1767, ¶ 53

(2d Dist.). The State’s duty under Brady extends not only to evidence within the

possession of the prosecutor but entails “a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known

to others acting on the government’s behalf in the case, including the police.” Kyles at

437.

{¶ 23} A Brady violation has three elements: (1) the State suppressed evidence,

either willfully or inadvertently; (2) the evidence was favorable to the defendant, either

because it was exculpatory or because it was impeaching; and (3) the suppressed

evidence was material. See Bethel at ¶ 19; Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786, 794-795

(1972); Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281-282 (1999).

{¶ 24} Mathews makes several Brady-related arguments as to why he should be

granted a new trial. First, he contends a conversation that then-booking officer Lyons had

with the Attorney General’s office in 2021 was problematic under Brady. In this interaction,

Officer Lyons purportedly informed the State before the trial that when he encountered

Mathews at the jail on October 30, 2011, Matthews had several items on his person, but

not gloves. Testimony from the September 2023 hearing is illustrative.

Attorney: Did you make it clear to the Attorney General’s Office that you did not

observe Josiah Mathews with latex rubber gloves the day you booked him into the

Tri-County Jail?

Officer Lyons: Correct. I remember specifically thinking to myself, like, If I logged

that this guy had a piece of string in his pocket, why would I not log in a pair of

gloves? -9-

Sept. 8, 2023 Hearing Tr. at 22.

{¶ 25} Although both sides agree that the conversation between Officer Lyons and

the Attorney General’s office was not relayed to Mathews’s defense counsel before the

trial, the content from the conversation – that Officer Lyons had not found gloves on

Mathews – was known by defense counsel well before trial. This is evinced by Stipulated

Exhibit 9: “Booking Assessments and Medical Records – Josiah Mathews October 30,

2011.” Page 14 of Exhibit 9 was the “Initial Property Form,” a document showing all of

Mathews’s items removed by Officer Lyons when he was booked into jail on October 30,

2011. Gloves were not mentioned. The document itself was signed by Officer Lyons and

Mathews, and its admissibility and authenticity were stipulated by both the State and the

defense. The call between Officer Lyons and the State (assistant attorney general) was

not evidence, but the content was, and Mathews knew about that well before trial. Further,

the content was not beneficial to Mathews. It is hard to imagine that whether Mathews

was or was not found with gloves (there was conflicting evidence) when he was booked

for a different crime six days after the murder could have played any significant role in

the case. There was no Brady violation.

{¶ 26} Mathews also argues that it was a Brady violation for the State not to

disclose Officer Lyons as a witness; however, the State was under no obligation to list

individuals it did not intend to call as witnesses. See Crim.R. 16(I) (“Each party shall

provide to opposing counsel a written list, including names and addresses of any witness

it intends to call in its case-in-chief, or reasonably anticipates calling in rebuttal or

surrebuttal.”); State v. Craft, 2002-Ohio-4481, ¶ 13-14 (12th Dist.) (a trial court abuses its -10-

discretion when it orders the State to disclose names of witnesses it does not intend to

call to testify). Further, because Officer Lyons was known to Mathews before trial – his

name appeared at least four times in Stipulated Exhibit 9 – not including him on the

witness list could not have been the basis for a new trial based on newly discovered

{¶ 27} Mathews also contends that the State ran afoul of Brady when it failed to

give him the opportunity to inspect “tangible objects” like gloves, especially when it

intended to introduce them at trial. Because of this alleged violation, it is his position that

he first became aware of the rubber gloves at trial. The record, however, points in a

different direction.

{¶ 28} According to the State’s May 12, 2023 Hearing Exhibits 2 and 3, on

February 26, 2021, Mathews was provided with supplemental discovery, including the

Urbana Police Department property form that listed the gloves. The property form

inventoried all the items collected and stated: “EVH Plastic Inmate Personal Property Bag

Containing an LG Cell Phone, Multi-Colored Wallet, Josiah Mathews ID, Black String, and

Multiple Rubber Gloves[.]” UPD Property Form, Page 5, Item 56. Based on that, Mathews

cannot credibly claim he was unaware that the gloves existed until trial.

{¶ 29} As to whether the State denied Mathews the opportunity to inspect the

“tangible objects,” the record also belies that assertion. In early January 2022, defense

counsel met with Lt. Jacobs to look at specific pieces of evidence, including the victim’s

clothing and a bloody rag found in the home. State’s Exhibit 5; May 12, 2023 Hearing Tr.

at 48-49. According to Lt. Jacobs’s testimony and an audio recording of the event (May -11-

12, 2023 Hearing Exhibit 11), during that meeting Lt. Jacobs provided the requested items

but also showed defense counsel the Urbana police department property form, which had

previously been provided during discovery, which included Item 56, “multiple rubber

gloves.” Despite being made aware (again) of the existence of the gloves, defense

counsel did not ask to see any items other than the requested clothing, shoes, and a rag.

Mathews was not denied the opportunity to inspect “tangible items” like gloves.

{¶ 30} Even if we came to the opposite conclusion on all the Brady and Crim.R. 33

related topics, we would still conclude that the trial court did not err in denying a new trial

because the trial resulted in a verdict worthy of confidence.

{¶ 31} There was strong evidence presented at trial that Mathews was guilty of

Taylor’s murder. Before the crime, Mathews told a friend that he was going to “hit a lick”

at a house close to Melvin Miller Park in Urbana, that it had to be done at night, and that

the victim was someone for whom he had worked in the past. Taylor lived near the park,

and Mathews had done odd jobs for him previously.

{¶ 32} Cell phone location data put Mathews near the victim’s house in the

timeframe of the incident on October 24, 2011, and evidence revealed that he turned the

phone off for approximately three hours that night. Further, there was evidence that

Mathews deleted all his text messages from October 16 to October 26, 2011.

{¶ 33} After the murder, Mathews went to Amanda Lewis’s house (which was

within walking distance of Taylor’s home), where police later found bloody towels in the

bathroom and Mathews’s clothing on top of the trunk of her vehicle. That same night,

Matthews went to see Anthony Howard; he told Howard that he had “beat the fuck out of -12-

somebody” and revealed that he thought he had killed the victim. Howard noticed that

Mathews’s hands looked like he had been in a fight, and Mathews was known to have

brass knuckles.

{¶ 34} Mathews also informed Howard that he had stolen Taylor’s Jeep, and

Howard suggested that Mathews clean up any fingerprints that might be found. Mathews

asked others if they knew anyone who wanted to buy a Jeep. Trial evidence also revealed

that, on the night of the murder, Mathews stayed at a hotel in Springfield; the Jeep was

found in an adjacent parking lot the next day. His fingerprints were on the rear bumper.

{¶ 35} Taylor’s wedding ring was stolen during the crime. Mathews asked another

friend to pawn a wedding ring the day after the murder.

{¶ 36} Mathews was arrested on unrelated charges on October 30, 2011, six days

after the incident at Taylor’s home. All the jail personnel who came in contact with him

that day noted that he had wounds on his hands and knuckles, and testimony revealed

that those injuries had been consistent with striking someone with his fists or with brass

knuckles.

{¶ 37} Mathews’s injuries were also consistent with what would have caused

Taylor’s injuries and death. When first responders arrived on the morning of October 25,

2011, Taylor had large open wounds on the top and side of his head and dried blood on

his head, face, and neck. He also had a severely bruised and swollen right eye. After his

death, an autopsy revealed multiple skull fractures and brain bleeds, and the photographs

showed cuts and bruises all over Taylor’s head, face, and neck. The autopsy’s conclusion

was that Taylor’s death was caused by blunt force trauma to the head with a blunt object. -13-

{¶ 38} Based on all of that, the evidence against Mathews, even without any

mention of gloves, was enough to be confident in a guilty verdict. Accordingly, we

conclude that the trial court did not err by denying Mathews’s motion for a new trial; he

failed to meet the requirements under both Crim.R. 33(A)(6) and Brady. Mathews’s

assignment of error is overruled.

III. Conclusion

{¶ 39} The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

LEWIS, J. and HUFFMAN, J., concur.