No motion for a new trial shall be granted or verdict set aside, nor shall any judgment of conviction be reversed in any court because of:
(A) An inaccuracy or imperfection in the indictment, information, or warrant, provided that the charge is sufficient to fairly and reasonably inform the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
(B) A variance between the allegations and the proof thereof unless the accused is misled or prejudiced thereby;
(C) The admission or rejection of any evidence offered against or for the accused unless it affirmatively appears on the record that the accused was or may have been prejudiced thereby;
(D) A misdirection of the jury unless the accused was or may have been prejudiced thereby;
(E) Any other cause unless it appears affirmatively from the record that the accused was prejudiced thereby or was prevented from having a fair trial.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 114
cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1954–2025 · leading case: State v. Morris (Slip Opinion), 2014-Ohio-5052, 24 N.E.3d 1153.
State v. Morris (Slip Opinion), 2014-Ohio-5052, 24 N.E.3d 1153. · cites it 4דR.C. 2945.83 states: No motion for a new trial shall be granted or verdict set aside, nor shall any judgment of conviction be reversed in any court because of: *** (C) The admission or rejection of any evidence offered against or for the accused unless it affirmatively appears…”
State v. Dehass, 227 N.E.2d 212 (Ohio 1967). · cites it 2ד” He stated further that defendant had a fair trial, and that “the verdict of guilty and the judgment of the trial court thereon should be affirmed,” citing Section 2945.83 (E), Revised Code. Of course, under Section 6, Article IV of the Constitution of Ohio, there could be no…”
State v. Jacinto, 2020-Ohio-3722, 155 N.E.3d 1056. “No expert report was provided to the defense — aside from the EMS report which did not address these issues — and Hyde was not shown to have any expertise or specialized training in traumatic brain injuries or the forces required to cause those injuries as would be necessary to…”
State v. Boaston (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-1061, 153 N.E.3d 44. “Furthermore, R.C. 2945.83 states: No motion for a new trial shall be granted or verdict set aside, nor shall any judgment of conviction be reversed in any court because of: *** (C) The admission or rejection of any evidence offered against or for the accused unless it…”
State v. Colon, 885 N.E.2d 917 (Ohio 2008). “R.C. 2945.83 states: {¶ 73} “No motion for a new trial shall be granted or verdict set aside, nor shall any judgment of conviction be reversed in any court because of: {¶ 74} “(A) An inaccuracy or imperfection in the indictment, * :|! * provided that the charge is sufficient to…”
State v. Sellards, 478 N.E.2d 781 (Ohio 1985). “See, also, R.C. 2945.83(A); Crim. R. 7(B). The General Assembly, in declaring what shall be sufficient in an indictment, provided, among other things, that it shall be sufficient if it can be understood that the offense was committed at some time prior to the time of the filing…”
State v. Martin, 483 N.E.2d 1157 (Ohio 1985). “Nevertheless, we agree with the appellate court’s finding that the trial court’s July 8, 1983 sentencing not only set out the judgment, but also addressed the mitigating factors.”
State v. Vales, 2020-Ohio-245, 143 N.E.3d 577. · cites it 2דThe Ohio Supreme Court has applied this standard of review, Thus, under Section 2945.83 of the Revised Code it would seem that since there is substantial evidence to support the guilty verdict even after the tainted evidence is cast aside, we should affirm.”
State v. Barnhart, 2010-Ohio-3282. “See, also, R.C. 2945.83(A); Crim.R. 7(B). The General Assembly, in declaring what shall be sufficient in an indictment, provided, among other things, that it shall be sufficient if it can be understood that the offense was committed at some time prior to the time of the filing…”
State v. Shue, 646 N.E.2d 1156 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994). “R.C. 2945.83(D); Crim.R. 33(E)(4). “We emphatically remind trial courts that they should limit definitions, where possible, to those definitions provided by the legislature in order to avoid unnecessary confusion and needless appellate challenges.”
State v. Davis, 203 N.E.2d 357 (Ohio 1964). · cites it 2ד2d, 50 ; Section 2945.83, Revised Code. As to the confession, the only objection to its admission was on the specific ground that it was “not a voluntary statement,” There was no evidence to support a conclusion that *33 it was not a voluntary statement.”
State v. Worship, 2022-Ohio-52. “52(A) and R.C. 2945.83(D). {¶20} "When determining whether erroneously admitted evidence affected a defendant's substantial rights as to require a new trial or whether such an admission was harmless under Crim.”
State v. Sellards, 478 N.E.2d 781 (Ohio 1985). “See, also, R.C. 2945.83(A); Crim. R. 7(B). The General Assembly, in declaring what shall be sufficient in an indictment, provided, among other things, that it shall be sufficient if it can be understood that the offense was committed at some time prior to the time of the filing…”
State v. Barnhart, 2010-Ohio-3282. “See, also, R.C. 2945.83(A); Crim.R. 7(B). The General Assembly, in declaring what shall be sufficient in an indictment, provided, among other things, that it shall be sufficient if it can be understood that the offense was committed at some time prior to the time of the filing…”
State v. Morris (Slip Opinion), 2014-Ohio-5052, 24 N.E.3d 1153. “R.C. 2945.83 states: No motion for a new trial shall be granted or verdict set aside, nor shall any judgment of conviction be reversed in any court because of: *** (C) The admission or rejection of any evidence offered against or for the accused unless it affirmatively appears…”
State v. Jacinto, 2020-Ohio-3722, 155 N.E.3d 1056. “No expert report was provided to the defense — aside from the EMS report which did not address these issues — and Hyde was not shown to have any expertise or specialized training in traumatic brain injuries or the forces required to cause those injuries as would be necessary to…”
State v. Shue, 646 N.E.2d 1156 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994). “R.C. 2945.83(D); Crim.R. 33(E)(4). “We emphatically remind trial courts that they should limit definitions, where possible, to those definitions provided by the legislature in order to avoid unnecessary confusion and needless appellate challenges.”
State v. Worship, 2022-Ohio-52. “52(A) and R.C. 2945.83(D). {¶20} "When determining whether erroneously admitted evidence affected a defendant's substantial rights as to require a new trial or whether such an admission was harmless under Crim.”
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.