A new trial, after a verdict of conviction, may be granted on the application of the defendant for any of the following causes affecting materially his substantial rights:
(A) Irregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury, prosecuting attorney, or the witnesses for the state, or for any order of the court, or abuse of discretion by which the defendant was prevented from having a fair trial;
(B) Misconduct of the jury, prosecuting attorney, or the witnesses for the state;
(C) Accident or surprise which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against;
(D) That the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence or is contrary to law; but if the evidence shows the defendant is not guilty of the degree of crime for which he was convicted, but guilty of a lesser degree thereof, or of a lesser crime included therein, the court may modify the verdict or finding accordingly, without granting or ordering a new trial, and pass sentence on such verdict or finding as modified, provided that this power extends to any court to which the cause may be taken on appeal;
(E) Error of law occurring at the trial;
(F) When new evidence is discovered material to the defendant, which he could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial. When a motion for a new trial is made upon the ground of newly discovered evidence, the defendant must produce at the hearing of said motion, in support thereof, the affidavits of the witnesses by whom such evidence is expected to be given, and if time is required by the defendant to procure such affidavits, the court may postpone the hearing of the motion for such length of time as under all the circumstances of the case is reasonable. The prosecuting attorney may produce affidavits or other evidence to impeach the affidavits of such witnesses.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 84
cases (27 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: State v. Miller, 2023-Ohio-3448, 227 N.E.3d 1189.
State v. Miller, 2023-Ohio-3448, 227 N.E.3d 1189. · cites it 15ד33, adopted as a rule of practice and procedure in support of R.C. 2945.79, permits a defendant to file a motion for a new trial when a defendant’s substantial rights have been materially affected by certain events.”
State v. Brown, 2017-Ohio-7134, 95 N.E.3d 962. · cites it 14דThird Assignment of Error – Motion for New Trial {¶ 33} In his third and final assignment of error, Brown argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial.”
State v. Guy, 2018-Ohio-4836. · cites it 3דConclusion {¶ 67} For the foregoing reasons, we overrule James's nine assignments of error and affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.”
State v. Miller, 664 N.E.2d 1309 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1995). · cites it 4דAppellant moved for a new trial pursuant to R.C. 2945.79, 3 which provides for the granting of a new trial on the application of the defendant for causes materially affecting his substantial rights.”
State v. Adams, 2004 Ohio 5845 (Ohio 2004). “This extensive voir dire lasted for 11 days, and the court and counsel readily agreed on those who should be excused.”
State v. Reed, 418 N.E.2d 1359 (Ohio 1981). · cites it 2ד2d 23 , at page 36, this court stated: “***Under Section 2945.79(D), Revised Code, this court is authorized to modify a verdict if the evidence shows that the defendant is not guilty of the degree of crime for which he was convicted, but is guilty of a lesser included offense.”
State v. Roper, 2021-Ohio-188. · cites it 2ד33(A)[ and also R.C. 2945.79(B)], juror misconduct justifies a new trial only if it materially affected an accused’s substantial rights.”
State v. Taylor, 598 N.E.2d 818 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1991). · cites it 2ד33(A); R.C. 2945.79(A). Conversations by a third person with a juror during the progress of a trial for the purpose of influencing the verdict may invalidate the verdict, but where there is nothing in the record to demonstrate that the decision might have been influenced by such…”
State v. Gear, 2023-Ohio-1246. · cites it 2דrovides the following grounds for a new trial: (1) Irregularity in the proceedings, or in any order or ruling of the court, or abuse of discretion by the court, because of which the defendant was prevented from having a fair trial; (2) Misconduct of the jury, prosecuting…”
State v. Donkers, 867 N.E.2d 903 (Ohio Ct. App. 11th Dist. 2007). “See R.C. 2945.79(D) (where insufficient evidence *535 of degree of crime convicted but sufficient evidence of lesser degree, court of appeals can modify the offense).”
State v. Hudson, 2018-Ohio-423, 106 N.E.3d 205. “), quoting R.C. 2945.79(D). See also State v. Jackson , 4th Dist.”
State v. Clay, 280 N.E.2d 385 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1972). · cites it 4דThe testimony of the Athens County Prosecuting Attorney, offered during the trial of defendant-appellant, was rendered suspect by the affidavit of the disinterested witness, Don Rixman, and said conflict in sworn testimony raised the issue of misconduct, which was properly…”
State v. Miller, 2023-Ohio-3448, 227 N.E.3d 1189. “33, adopted as a rule of practice and procedure in support of R.C. 2945.79, permits a defendant to file a motion for a new trial when a defendant’s substantial rights have been materially affected by certain events.”
State v. Taylor, 598 N.E.2d 818 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1991). “33(A); R.C. 2945.79(A). Conversations by a third person with a juror during the progress of a trial for the purpose of influencing the verdict may invalidate the verdict, but where there is nothing in the record to demonstrate that the decision might have been influenced by such…”
Lawless v. Hill, No. 5:21-cv-01938 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 30, 2024).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2945.79(B): 12 cases
State v. Adams, 2004 Ohio 5845 (Ohio 2004). “This extensive voir dire lasted for 11 days, and the court and counsel readily agreed on those who should be excused.”
State v. Brown, 2017-Ohio-7134, 95 N.E.3d 962. “Third Assignment of Error – Motion for New Trial {¶ 33} In his third and final assignment of error, Brown argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial.”
State v. Roper, 2021-Ohio-188. “33(A)[ and also R.C. 2945.79(B)], juror misconduct justifies a new trial only if it materially affected an accused’s substantial rights.”
State v. King, 578 N.E.2d 501 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 1989).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2945.79(D): 27 cases
State v. Miller, 664 N.E.2d 1309 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1995). “Appellant moved for a new trial pursuant to R.C. 2945.79, 3 which provides for the granting of a new trial on the application of the defendant for causes materially affecting his substantial rights.”
State v. Reed, 418 N.E.2d 1359 (Ohio 1981). “2d 23 , at page 36, this court stated: “***Under Section 2945.79(D), Revised Code, this court is authorized to modify a verdict if the evidence shows that the defendant is not guilty of the degree of crime for which he was convicted, but is guilty of a lesser included offense.”
State v. Donkers, 867 N.E.2d 903 (Ohio Ct. App. 11th Dist. 2007). “See R.C. 2945.79(D) (where insufficient evidence *535 of degree of crime convicted but sufficient evidence of lesser degree, court of appeals can modify the offense).”
State v. Hudson, 2018-Ohio-423, 106 N.E.3d 205. “), quoting R.C. 2945.79(D). See also State v. Jackson , 4th Dist.”
State v. Miller, 2023-Ohio-3448, 227 N.E.3d 1189. “33, adopted as a rule of practice and procedure in support of R.C. 2945.79, permits a defendant to file a motion for a new trial when a defendant’s substantial rights have been materially affected by certain events.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.