Skip to content Skip to main navigation Skip to footer
Ohio Case Law

State v. Rainey, 2025-Ohio-2608

Case Information

Court: Court of Appeals of Ohio, First Appellate District, Hamilton County
Date: 2025-07-25
Citation: 2025-Ohio-2608
Read the Opinion

Summary

Summary: The First District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed the denial of a motion for leave to file a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, finding that the Defendant failed to prove he was unavoidably prevented from discovering his codefendant’s confession within the required time.

Key Holdings

  • A defendant seeking a new trial based on newly discovered evidence must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the evidence could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence within 120 days of the verdict.
  • Newly available evidence is not the same as newly discovered evidence under Crim.R. 33(B).
  • Post-sentencing confessions by codefendants are not generally considered newly discovered evidence due to the risk of perjury.
  • A defendant’s awareness of the substance of a codefendant’s potential testimony negates claims of unavoidable prevention from discovery.

More Information

The Defendant was convicted by a jury in 2022 on multiple counts of drug trafficking, with a sentence of 13 to 16.5 years. His codefendant, who was tried separately, entered a plea deal and received a lesser sentence. After conviction, the Defendant moved for leave to file a motion for new trial, citing newly discovered evidence—two affidavits from the codefendant confessing sole responsibility for the drugs and contraband found in a shared building.

The trial court denied the motion, holding that although the confession was newly available, it did not qualify as newly discovered. The Defendant appealed, arguing he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the confession within the 120-day deadline after the jury verdict.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, applying an abuse of discretion standard. It emphasized that the Defendant knew the substance of the codefendant’s potential testimony and failed to show he made reasonable efforts to secure the confession in a timely manner. The court followed precedent distinguishing newly available from newly discovered evidence to prevent strategic delays and perjury in post-conviction affidavits.

As a result, the court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, and the conviction and judgment remained intact.