State v. Hurt
Citations
- 2026 Ohio 851
Syllabus
CRIM.R. 33(B) — UNAVOIDABLY PREVENTED — NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE: Although the trial court, when ruling on defendant's Crim.R. 33(B) motion for leave to file a new-trial motion, improperly considered the merits of defendant's new-trial motion and whether defendant had delayed seeking leave after discovering the new evidence on which his new-trial motion was based, this did not result in prejudicial error nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying the motion for leave where the court also conducted the proper inquiry and determined that defendant was not unavoidably prevented from discovering his codefendant's confession within 120-days of the jury's verdict.
Judges: Bock
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCites
5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Johnson v. Abdullah (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2021-09-22· cited 666×
- State v. HattonOhio Supreme Court· 2022-11-10· cited 113×
- State v. HurtOhio Court of Appeals· 2024-08-16· cited 12×
- Jabr v. Burger KingOhio Court of Appeals· 2022-03-15· cited 6×
- State v. SmithOhio Court of Appeals· 2023-11-01· cited 6×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.