State v. Petro
Decision Date | 26 November 1947 |
Docket Number | 31098. |
Citation | 76 N.E.2d 370,148 Ohio St. 505 |
Parties | STATE v. PETRO. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
To warrant the granting of a motion for a new trial in a criminal case, based on the ground of newly discovered evidence, it must be shown that the new evidence (1) discloses a strong probability that it will change the result if a new trial is granted, (2) has been discovered since the trial, (3) is such as could not in the exercise of due diligence have been discovered before the trial, (4) is material to the issues, (5) is not merely cumulative to former evidence, and (6) does not merely impeach or contradict the former evidence. (State v. Lopa, 96 Ohio St. 410, 117 N.E. 319, approved and followed.)
Appeal from Court of Appeals, for Cuyahoga County.
Edward C. Stanton and M. A. Picciano, both of Cleveland, for appellant.
Frank T. Cullitan, Pros. Atty., and Victor DeMarco, both of Cleveland, for appellee.
This is a separate appeal growing out of State v. Petro, Ohio Sup., 76 N.E.2d 355.
Appellant assigns as error the affirming of the judgment of the trial court in overruling defendant's motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, material to the defendant, and which he could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained and produced at the trial.
The motion reads:
'Now comes Julius Anthony Petro, defendant in the foregoing matter, and moves this honorable court for an order vacating and setting aside the verdict of the jury in this cause rendered on the 18th day of June, 1946, and granting a new trial herein, for the following reasons, to wit:
'Newly discovered evidence material to the defendant, which he could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial.
'In support of this motion, and pursuant to Section 13449-1 General Code, defendant files herewith the affidavit of the witness by whom such evidence is expected to be given.
'The affidavit reads as follows:
The law on this subject is set forth in the per curiam opinion in the case of State v. Lopa, 96 Ohio St. 410, at page 411, 117 N.E. 319, 320, where it is said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Hale
...33. 22 Whether Hale's newly discovered evidence satisfies the remaining elements of the standards set forth in Brady and State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505, 76 N.E.2d 370 (1947), syllabus, including whether the suppressed evidence is material, remains for the trial court to decide when adjudi......
-
State v. Hale
... ... discovering the evidence on which he seeks to base his ... motion." Hatton, 169 Ohio St.3d 446, ... 2022-Ohio-3991, 205 N.E.3d 513, at ¶ 33 ... Whether Hale's newly discovered evidence satisfies the ... remaining elements of the standards set forth in ... Brady and State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505, ... 76 N.E.2d 370 (1947), syllabus, including whether the ... suppressed evidence is material, remains for the trial court ... to decide when adjudicating the motion for a new trial ... itself. Thus, we express no opinion on whether Hale should ... ultimately prevail on the ... ...
-
State v. Houston
... ... material to the issues, (5) is not merely cumulative to ... former evidence, and (6) does not merely impeach or ... contradict the former evidence." ... State v. Gilbert, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106358, ... 2018-Ohio-3789, ¶ 24, quoting State v. Petro, ... 148 Ohio St. 505, 76 N.E.2d 370 (1947), syllabus ... {¶ ... 14} A motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence ... must be filed within 120 days after a verdict is rendered ... Crim.R. 33(B). A defendant who fails to file a motion for new ... trial within ... ...
-
State v. Ojile
...evidence. State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505, 76 N.E.2d 370 (1947), syllabus. {¶31} In this appeal, the parties focus on the first and sixth Petro factors, and no one explicitly contests the other Petro factors had been satisfied, including that the new evidence was material to the issues at ......