State v. Tucker
Citations
- 2025 Ohio 923
Syllabus
Motion for leave to file a motion for new trial; murder; new witness; recanting witness; affidavit testimony; Crim.R. 33; newly discovered evidence; unavoidably prevented. - Judgment affirmed. Tucker's motion for leave to file a motion for new trial fails to make the required showing that Tucker was unavoidably prevented from discovering an allegedly previously unknown witness, and Tucker's arguments regarding a recanting witness are barred by res judicata.
Judges: Keough
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Johnson v. Abdullah (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2021-09-22· cited 666×
- State v. Bethel (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2022-03-22· cited 161×
- State v. HattonOhio Supreme Court· 2022-11-10· cited 113×
- State v. McFarlandOhio Court of Appeals· 2022-12-22· cited 26×
- State v. SuttonOhio Court of Appeals· 2016-11-03· cited 24×
- State v. TuckerOhio Court of Appeals· 2011-08-18· cited 20×
- State v. HaleOhio Court of Appeals· 2019-05-16· cited 19×
- State v. HillOhio Court of Appeals· 2020-01-16· cited 18×
- State v. AllenOhio Court of Appeals· 2024-03-14· cited 7×
- State v. TuckerOhio Court of Appeals· 2013-06-20· cited 4×
- State v. JohnsonOhio Court of Appeals· 2022-02-24· cited 4×
- State v. MinifeeOhio Court of Appeals· 2024-01-11· cited 3×
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.