State v. Martin

Citations

• 2025 Ohio 4953

Syllabus

Motion for new trial; Crim.R. 33; newly discovered evidence; recanted testimony; independent review; abuse of discretion; credibility. There was no evidence that trial court failed to independently review the record when ruling on a motion for new trial even though the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law tracked the language in the State's proposed findings of fact and conclusions because the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law accurately reflected the facts and the law and there was no evidence that the court rubber-stamped the State's proposed findings and conclusions. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that recanting witnesses' testimony was not credible where the testimony required the court to believe that three law enforcement agencies and the witnesses' defense lawyer engaged in conspiracy and the witnesses' original trial testimony was consistent with the testimony of another eyewitness and with other corroborating evidence.