State v. Rainey
Citations
- 2025 Ohio 2608
Syllabus
CRIM.R. 33(B) — UNAVOIDABLY PREVENTED — NEWLY-DISCOVERED EVIDENCE: The common pleas court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's Crim.R. 33(B) motion for leave to file a new-trial motion based on newly-discovered evidence where the new evidence, the codefendant's confession, was not newly discovered but merely newly available for defendant's use, and where defendant failed to show that, by using reasonable diligence, he could not have discovered the substance of codefendant's now-available testimony within the 120-day period following the return of the jury verdicts.
Judges: Bock
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
1 case in this archive cites this case.
Cites
9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Johnson v. Abdullah (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2021-09-22· cited 666×
- United States v. Servando Reyes-Alvarado, United States of America v. Martin Gonzalez-RamirezNinth Circuit· 1992-06-15· cited 296×
- State v. HattonOhio Supreme Court· 2022-11-10· cited 113×
- United States v. Thomas P. JasinThird Circuit· 2002-02-05· cited 98×
- State v. McKnightOhio Court of Appeals· 2021-08-03· cited 11×
- State v. SmithOhio Court of Appeals· 2023-11-01· cited 6×
- State v. HowardOhio Court of Appeals· 2022-06-24· cited 5×
- State v. RaineyOhio Court of Appeals· 2023-12-22· cited 5×
- State v. BrandOhio Court of Appeals· 2025-02-28· cited 2×
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.