motion for new trial form

• State v. Beavers, (Ohio 2009)

Trial court erred when it overruled appellant’s motion for new trial. Newly discovered evidence in the form of testimony of an eyewitness to a shooting was not merely cumulative with testimony of one other eyewitness, but had a strong probability of causing a different result. The new eyewitness had a materially different and better vantage from which to view the shooter than had the eyewitness who testified for the defendant at trial. Furthermore, the evidence of guilt in this case, while sufficient to support a conviction, was both controverted and far from overwhelming. Reversed and Remanded.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• State v. Bundy, (Ohio 2005)

Conspiracy indictment; Crim.R. 12(C)(2); State v. Childs, 88 Ohio St.3d 194, 2000-Ohio-298; Adequacy of the indictment; Motion to suppress; Request for counsel in custodial interrogation; Ambiguous invocation of right to counsel; Joinder; Motion for new trial; Jury verdict not inconsistent; Maximum sentence; Felony sentencing; Worst form of the offense.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Nalls v. Richard A. Nystrom, L.P.A., (Ohio 2006)

Trial court did not err in rendering directed verdict for defendant lawyer in legal malpractice action. Plaintiff failed to present any evidence that he was prejudiced as a result of lawyer’s decision to raise the issue of the recantation of a witness for the prosecution in the form of a motion for a new trial, rather than in the form of a petition for post-conviction relief under R.C. 2953.21. Furthermore, issue of proximate cause – whether lawyer’s alleged breach of duty proximately caused injury to plaintiff – was not within common, ordinary understanding of laymen, so that failure to provide expert testimony on proximate cause was fatal to plaintiff’s case. Affirmed.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• State v. Perdue, (Ohio 2005)

Proposed entries are common and permissible; Delayed motion for new trial for newly discovered evidence in form of witness testimony at fugitive codefendant's trial eight years later; Allegations of changed testimony where witness placed unindicted person in role previously ascribed to appellant but maintained appellant had a gun and entered the murder scene; Alleged recantation; Letters by codefendants written years after crimes need not be taken as true.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• USA vs Derrick Cooper, (11th Cir. 2011)

... its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence o... for new trial based on juror misconduct is a form of a motion for new trial based on newly discovere...

• Federal Circuits

• State v. Dawson, (Ohio 2011)

Motion for a new trial.

... proof in the form of affidavits.   Since Appellant supplied only his own conjec...

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Wall v. Kholi, 562 U.S. (2011)

... The question in this case is whethera motion to reduce sentence under Rhode Island law tollsthe...8. In that motion,respondent asked the trial court to "reconsider its priordetermination" and ...) (2008)(defining "collateral attack" as "any form of postconvictionrelief other than a direct appeal...

• U.S. Supreme Court

• Wood v. Harborside Healthcare, (Ohio 2012)

Trial court erred in denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial where jury initially rendered general verdict for plaintiff, but after court sent jury back three times for further deliberations, it rendered judgment for defendant; judge advised of but failed to correct erroneous interrogatory instruction prior to deliberations, and upon sending jury back to deliberate further, did not read or explain interrogatories or verdict forms to jury and did not provide jury with new interrogatories but handwrote change on the form; despite judge’s conclusion, not apparent that jury’s initial verdict for plaintiff and interrogatory answers were inconsistent; thus, significant irregularities in jury deliberations denied plaintiff a fair trial.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• 11 Nutrisoya Foods Inc., etc. v. Sunrich, LLC, etc., (8th Cir. 2011)

...Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Nutrisoya..., and the district court1 denied both motions. On this appeal, Sunrich argues that the district ...Instead, the parties developed a less formal arrangement. Initially, Nutrisoya would call ahead...

• Federal Circuits

• State v. Maxwell, (Ohio 2010)

Crim. R.33(B) - Untimely motion for new trial; Crim R. 33(A) - Res Judicata.

... proceedings due to defects in the verdict forms. Via Journal Entry filed August 18, 2010, the tri...

• Ohio Supreme Court