State v. Ojile

Citations

• 2023 Ohio 4277

Syllabus

NEW TRIAL: The common pleas court abused its discretion by denying defendant's Crim.R. 33(A)(6) motion for a new trial on a charge of aggravated robbery based on the newly discovered evidence of his codefendant's affidavit attesting to defendant's innocence of this crime and confessing to placing the victim's stolen property into defendant's backpack and the newly discovered evidence of the jailhouse informant who recanted his trial testimony that defendant had confessed his involvement in this crime: this new evidence discloses a strong probability that it will change the result if a new trial is granted given that the only evidence presented at trial tying defendant to this crime was the victim's stolen property found in defendant's backpack. The common pleas court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial on the remaining two counts of aggravated robbery and a single count of conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery where the newly discovered evidence did not disclose a strong probability of a different result if a new trial is granted where the newly discovered evidence did not vitiate the evidence presented at trial or where it merely contradicted the evidence presented at trial.