State v. Bethel (Slip Opinion)

Citations

• 192 N.E.3d 470
• 167 Ohio St. 3d 362
• 2022 Ohio 783

Syllabus

Criminal law—Successive postconviction motion—Suppression of evidence—R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(b)—Defendant seeking to assert a claim under Brady v. Maryland is not required to show that he could not have discovered suppressed evidence by exercising reasonable diligence—Defendant must establish that allegedly suppressed evidence is material—Motion for new trial—Until a trial court grants leave to file a motion for a new trial, motion for a new trial is not properly before the court—Crim.R. 33 prescribes the circumstances under which a defendant may seek leave to file a motion for a new trial alleging that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering evidence but does not give a deadline by which leave must be sought—Trial court does not have discretion to deny leave to file a motion for a new trial based on failure to seek leave within a reasonable time after discovering new evidence.