State v. Warren

Citations

• 2019 Ohio 3522

Syllabus

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling appellant's motion for leave to file a motion for new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence under circumstances where appellant failed to file his motion for leave within a reasonable time after discovering the evidence on which the motion was based. The trial court's decision to exclude expert testimony regarding the psychological pressures that lead to delayed recantations in adolescents was not an abuse of discretion that amounted to prejudicial error, since the expert testimony did not explain why appellant failed to file his motion for leave within a reasonable time after discovering the evidence on which the motion was based. Additionally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling appellant's motion for public records, as the requested records were not material to whether appellant filed his motion for leave within a reasonable time. Judgment affirmed. (Donovan, J., dissenting.)