State v. Johnson

Citations

• 2023 Ohio 808

Syllabus

Crim.R. 33 motion for new trial hearing on motion for a new trial res judicata newly discovered evidence Petro factors DNA testing lost evidence abuse of discretion. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion for a new trial. The evidence appellant submitted in support of his motion for new trial did not meet the Petro factors and was not newly discovered evidence. The matter of the missing evidence for which appellant wanted DNA testing completed had previously been litigated. The affidavit of appellant's proposed expert in eyewitness testimony was not newly discovered evidence. The appellant did not show that an expert was not available to him at trial and there was not a strong probability that the results of the trial would have been different if an expert on eyewitness identification had testified at his trial. The multiple affidavits of the person who claimed he committed the crimes for which appellant was convicted do not constitute newly discovered evidence. The other person was known to appellant prior to his trial and defense strategy at trial was that this other person committed the crimes, his affidavits were inconsistent, and four victims identified appellant as the person who committed the crimes.