{"id":444,"date":"2025-07-25T14:03:31","date_gmt":"2025-07-25T14:03:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/?post_type=lsvr_kba&p=444"},"modified":"2025-10-28T09:18:43","modified_gmt":"2025-10-28T09:18:43","slug":"state-v-rainey-2025-ohio-2608","status":"publish","type":"lsvr_kba","link":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/?lsvr_kba=state-v-rainey-2025-ohio-2608","title":{"rendered":"State v. Rainey, 2025-Ohio-2608"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Case Information<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Court: Court of Appeals of Ohio, First Appellate District, Hamilton County
Date: 2025-07-25
Citation: 2025-Ohio-2608
Read the Opinion<\/a>
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Summary<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Key Holdings<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
    \n
  • 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.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Newly available evidence is not the same as newly discovered evidence under Crim.R. 33(B).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Post-sentencing confessions by codefendants are not generally considered newly discovered evidence due to the risk of perjury.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • A defendant\u2019s awareness of the substance of a codefendant\u2019s potential testimony negates claims of unavoidable prevention from discovery.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

    More Information<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    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\u2014two affidavits from the codefendant confessing sole responsibility for the drugs and contraband found in a shared building.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The appellate court affirmed the trial court\u2019s decision, applying an abuse of discretion standard. It emphasized that the Defendant knew the substance of the codefendant\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    \t\t\t\t\t\tThe 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\u2019s confession within the required time.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"lsvr_kba_cat":[9],"lsvr_kba_tag":[],"class_list":["post-444","lsvr_kba","type-lsvr_kba","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","lsvr_kba_cat-criminal-law"],"yoast_head":"\nState v. Rainey, 2025-Ohio-2608 - Ohio Case Law<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/?lsvr_kba=state-v-rainey-2025-ohio-2608\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State v. Rainey, 2025-Ohio-2608 - Ohio Case Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"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\u2019s confession within the required time.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/?lsvr_kba=state-v-rainey-2025-ohio-2608\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ohio Case Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-10-28T09:18:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/?lsvr_kba=state-v-rainey-2025-ohio-2608\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/?lsvr_kba=state-v-rainey-2025-ohio-2608\",\"name\":\"State v. Rainey, 2025-Ohio-2608 - Ohio Case Law\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2025-07-25T14:03:31+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-10-28T09:18:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/?lsvr_kba=state-v-rainey-2025-ohio-2608#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/?lsvr_kba=state-v-rainey-2025-ohio-2608\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/?lsvr_kba=state-v-rainey-2025-ohio-2608#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Knowledge Base\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/?post_type=lsvr_kba\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"State v. Rainey, 2025-Ohio-2608\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"Ohio Case Law\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Ohio Case Law\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/cropped-favicon.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/cropped-favicon.png\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Ohio Case Law\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State v. Rainey, 2025-Ohio-2608 - Ohio Case Law","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/?lsvr_kba=state-v-rainey-2025-ohio-2608","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State v. Rainey, 2025-Ohio-2608 - Ohio Case Law","og_description":"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\u2019s confession within the required time.","og_url":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/?lsvr_kba=state-v-rainey-2025-ohio-2608","og_site_name":"Ohio Case Law","article_modified_time":"2025-10-28T09:18:43+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/?lsvr_kba=state-v-rainey-2025-ohio-2608","url":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/?lsvr_kba=state-v-rainey-2025-ohio-2608","name":"State v. Rainey, 2025-Ohio-2608 - Ohio Case Law","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-07-25T14:03:31+00:00","dateModified":"2025-10-28T09:18:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/?lsvr_kba=state-v-rainey-2025-ohio-2608#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/?lsvr_kba=state-v-rainey-2025-ohio-2608"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/?lsvr_kba=state-v-rainey-2025-ohio-2608#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Knowledge Base","item":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/?post_type=lsvr_kba"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"State v. Rainey, 2025-Ohio-2608"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/","name":"Ohio Case Law","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/#organization","name":"Ohio Case Law","url":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/cropped-favicon.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/cropped-favicon.png","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Ohio Case Law"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/lsvr_kba\/444","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/lsvr_kba"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/lsvr_kba"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=444"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/lsvr_kba\/444\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":595,"href":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/lsvr_kba\/444\/revisions\/595"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=444"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"lsvr_kba_cat","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Flsvr_kba_cat&post=444"},{"taxonomy":"lsvr_kba_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Flsvr_kba_tag&post=444"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}