[Cite as State v. Bressi, 2020-Ohio-4.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Appellant 

 v. 

JAMES P. BRESSI 

 Appellee 

C.A. No. 29257 

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT 

ENTERED IN THE 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO 

CASE No. CR-2013-08-2314 

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY 

Dated: January 2, 2020 

 

TEODOSIO, Presiding Judge. 

{¶1} Appellant, The State of Ohio, appeals from the judgment of the Summit County 

Court of Common Pleas, granting Appellee, James P. Bressi, a new trial. This Court affirms. 

I. 

{¶2} This Court previously set forth the underlying facts and procedural posture of this 

case as follows: 

Summit Pain Specialists is a medical organization that specializes in the treatment 

of individuals suffering from chronic pain. Before the events giving rise to this 

appeal, Bressi owned Summit Pain Specialists and operated it alongside his 

business partner, Dr. Robert Geiger. Bressi received his training in osteopathic 

medicine and frequently treated his patients using osteopathic manipulative 

treatment (“OMT”), a technique wherein an individual uses his hands to stretch 

and exert pressure on various muscles and joints to achieve optimal alignment and 

relieve pain. Starting in 2012, individuals began contacting the Stow Police 

Department to report that Bressi had engaged in inappropriate sexual contact with 

them when they came to him for treatment. The reports launched an intensive 

investigation led by Detective Jeff Swanson, who interviewed numerous patients 

and other individuals who had contact with Bressi. In March 2013, amidst 

accusations of inappropriate conduct and his breach of an office policy requiring 

the presence of chaperones during OMTs, Bressi was terminated from Summit 
2 

 

Pain Specialists. Sixth months later, the Stow Police Department’s investigation 

culminated in his arrest. 

A grand jury indicted Bressi on two counts of rape, thirteen counts of gross sexual 

imposition, and twelve counts of sexual imposition. The twenty-seven counts 

pertained to eleven different victims, ten of whom were Bressi’s patients and one 

of whom, C.H., was a nurse on his staff. The incidents underlying the twentyseven counts were alleged to have occurred at different times between May 2011 

and March 2013. 

* * * 

The jury found Bressi guilty of a single count of sexual imposition and not guilty 

of the remaining twenty-six counts against him. The court sentenced Bressi to 

fifty-nine days in jail, five years of probation, and a fine. Additionally, the court 

classified him as a tier one sexual offender. 

State v. Bressi, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27575, 2016-Ohio-5211, ¶ 2-6. 

{¶3} Bressi’s conviction for sexual imposition was affirmed on appeal. Id. at ¶ 43. He 

appealed this Court’s decision to the Supreme Court of Ohio, but the high court declined to 

accept jurisdiction. See State v. Bressi, 148 Ohio St.3d 1426, 2017-Ohio-905. He later moved 

the trial court for leave to file a motion for a new trial on account of newly discovered evidence. 

After a hearing on the matter, the trial court found that Bressi had demonstrated by clear and 

convincing proof he was unavoidably prevented from discovery of the new evidence, and thus 

granted his motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial. See Crim.R. 33(B). Bressi then 

filed his motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence, which the court 

subsequently granted despite opposition from the State. 

{¶4} This Court granted the State of Ohio leave to appeal from the trial court’s 

judgment granting Bressi a new trial, pursuant to R.C. 2945.67(A) and App.R. 5(C). See State v. 

Matthews, 81 Ohio St.3d 375, 379 (1998) (“[A] trial court’s order granting the defendant a new 

trial in a criminal case is a final appealable order which the state may appeal by leave of court.”). 

The State raises one assignment of error for this Court’s review. 
3 

 

II. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT GRANTED 

BRESSI’S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL, MERITING REVERSAL AND 

VACATION OF THE TRIAL COURT’S ORDER. 

{¶5} In its sole assignment of error, the State of Ohio argues that the trial court abused 

its discretion in granting Bressi’s motion for a new trial. We disagree. 

{¶6} Crim.R. 33(A) allows a defendant to move for a new trial when his substantial 

rights have been materially affected. Pursuant to Crim.R. 33(A)(6), a new trial may be ordered 

“[w]hen new evidence material to the defense is discovered which the defendant could not with 

reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial.” To warrant the granting of a 

motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence, the defendant must show that the 

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. Tolliver, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 16CA010986, 2017-Ohio-4214, ¶ 18, quoting State v. 

Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505 (1947), syllabus. 

{¶7} This Court applies an abuse of discretion standard of review when reviewing a 

trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered 

evidence. Tolliver at ¶ 18. “The term ‘abuse of discretion’ connotes more than an error of law 

or judgment; it implies that the court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” 

Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). “A decision is unreasonable if there is 

no sound reasoning process that would support that decision.” AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place 
4 

 

Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161 (1990). When applying an 

abuse of discretion standard, a reviewing court is precluded from simply substituting its own 

judgment for that of the trial court. Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619, 621 (1993). 

In other words, “[i]t is not sufficient for an appellate court to determine that a trial court abused 

its discretion simply because the appellate court might not have reached the same conclusion or 

is, itself, less persuaded by the trial court’s reasoning process than by the countervailing 

arguments.” State v. Morris, 132 Ohio St.3d 337, 2012-Ohio-2407, ¶ 14. 

{¶8} After Bressi filed a motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial, the trial court 

heard testimony from both Bressi and Z.B. at a hearing on August 8, 2017. Z.B. is the courtappointed receiver in a civil case involving Bressi and his former partners at Summit Pain. See 

James P. Bressi, et al. v. Robert S. Geiger, et al., Summit Cty. Case No. CV 2014-04-2198. 

Bressi sought and obtained permission from the appointing court to subpoena Z.B. to testify in 

this matter. See, generally, Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126 (1881). In his capacity as receiver, 

Z.B. is broadly tasked with identifying, locating, and liquidating all assets involved in the civil 

matter. 

{¶9} Z.B. testified that while carrying out his duties as receiver he met with the chief 

operating officer of Summit Pain (“R.G.”). In his review of the company’s “books,” Z.B. 

testified that he discovered many improprieties, including missing files that had been removed 

prior to his arrival and a “tremendous amount of money that could not be accounted for.” 

According to Z.B., salaries were “out of whack,” receipts for large purchases were missing, and 

“tremendous amounts” of expenditures were coded as “business development[,]” yet no 

corresponding purchases could be found. Z.B. testified that R.G. began “tak[ing] everything that 

wasn’t nailed down[,]” including all of the money out of the accounts, while leaving about 
5 

 

$70,000.00 in unpaid payroll. Some employees of Summit Pain contacted Z.B. after he was 

appointed and claimed that R.G. had assured them they were “protected” because the receiver 

would pay them when he arrived. Z.B. also testified that, once litigation was initiated thereafter, 

Dr. Geiger and his wife filed for bankruptcy. 

{¶10} Z.B. eventually began reviewing over 20,000 emails in April or May of 2017, 

which were obtained in multiple batches from R.G.’s attorneys. Z.B. testified that he has worked 

almost full-time for ten months reviewing them all. The emails had been previously protected by 

Dr. Geiger’s attorney-client privilege, but a waiver of that privilege was negotiated and obtained 

during Dr. Geiger’s bankruptcy case. Z.B. testified that these emails included some 

correspondence between R.G. and his attorneys, in which R.G. asked, “[W]ould it be okay if 

they got C.H. to embellish her story of Mr. Bressi, would that work for them,” but one of the 

attorneys replied, “[A]bsolutely not, don’t do that.” Z.B. further testified: 

[A]s the pattern goes and this case progresses, there are scores of incidents 

whereby [R.G., Dr. Geiger, and his wife] continued to ask their attorneys can we 

do this. The attorneys say absolutely not, and then the next e-mail between all 

three of them is how are we going to do this without permission of the attorneys, 

and they simply proceed to do it. 

In fact there are e-mails between the attorneys saying what are we going to do 

when it’s found out that they did these things. 

Z.B. clarified that “these things” meant getting C.H. to embellish her story, “[a]mong other 

things.” Z.B. further testified: 

There were mentions of the fact that [C.H.] should be encouraged to embellish her 

testimony as it would look good for Dr. Geiger especially coming up on his 

medical board hearings because they wanted to lay the blame for everything on 

[Bressi]. 

Z.B. also testified that his investigation into the emails revealed: 

A continual pattern on the part of [R.G., Dr. Geiger, and his wife] to box out Dr. 

Bressi starting in ’13. In ’13, and I now have this as other lawyers have been 
6 

 

forced to turn over their records, there was a concerted effort to first get rid of Dr. 

Bressi, and I’m not here to comment on that at all, just that there was a concerted 

effort to get him out. 

And then it was discovered that they would have to pay Dr. Bressi for his shares, 

they all just said we’re not going to do it because he is going to jail forever and 

guys in jail can’t sue us. 

Z.B. testified that the emails dated back to 2012, when an investor was negotiating the purchase 

of Bressi’s shares of the business. In 2013, however, a “shift” occurred in the emails, whereby 

Dr. Geiger simply said: “[W]ait a second; Bressi is under arrest; he is going on trial; why do I 

need to sell this; I can keep 100 percent for myself.” 

{¶11} The State argues that the emails were never produced nor authenticated at the 

hearing, which is a prerequisite to admissibility. “Before evidence may be admitted, it must be 

authenticated or identified sufficiently ‘to support a finding that the matter in question is what its 

proponent claims.’” State v. Hoffmeyer, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27065, 2014-Ohio-3578, ¶ 18, 

quoting Evid.R. 901(A). The threshold for admissibility is low, however, and Evid.R. 901(B) 

provides a nonexhaustive list illustrating the ways in which the proponent of the admission of 

evidence can conform with Evid.R. 901(A). State v. Yuschak, 9th Dist. Medina No. 15CA0055-

M, 2016-Ohio-8507, ¶ 17. For example, the authentication or identification of evidence may be 

achieved through the testimony of a witness with knowledge that “‘a matter is what it is claimed 

to be.’” Id., quoting Evid.R. 901(B)(1). Here, Z.B. testified that, in his capacity as receiver in a 

related civil case, he received these emails directly from R.G.’s attorneys. Z.B.’s testimony is 

sufficient to satisfy Bressi’s burden to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood the over 20,000 

emails are authentic. See Hoffmeyer at ¶ 18. 

{¶12} The State argues in the alternative that even if the emails had been admitted, both 

Z.B.’s testimony and the emails contained inadmissible hearsay. See Evid.R. 801(C) (defining 
7 

 

“hearsay” as “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or 

hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted”); Evid.R. 802 (noting the 

general inadmissibility of hearsay); but see Evid.R. 803 and 804 (listing multiple exceptions to 

the hearsay rule). “[T]o prove that a new trial is warranted on the basis of newly discovered 

evidence, such evidence must be admissible in the new trial.” State v. Vess, 6th Dist. Ottawa No. 

OT-10-038, 2011-Ohio-3118, ¶ 38, citing State v. Williams, 43 Ohio St.2d 88 (1975), paragraph 

one of the syllabus. In rejecting the State’s hearsay argument, the trial court noted in its order: 

“[T]here are a number of ways in which the emails and other communications can be introduced 

into evidence in Bressi’s case-in-chief or for impeachment purposes.” The State now argues that 

the trial court erred in considering the admissibility of the evidence at a new trial. But, the court 

needed to consider the admissibility of the newly discovered evidence at a new trial, and we 

therefore cannot say that it erred in doing so. See id. We determine that the trial court acted 

within its discretion in reaching its conclusions as to the admissibility of the evidence. See State 

v. Henning, 9th Dist. Summit No. 29128, 2019-Ohio-2200, ¶ 17 (“Admissibility determinations 

under the evidentiary rules generally fall within the sound discretion of the trial court.”). 

{¶13} The State also cites to our decision in State v. Holmes and argues that affidavits 

and unverified emails replete with hearsay will not satisfy the defendant’s burden to demonstrate 

a strong probability that the evidence would change the result of a new trial. See State v. 

Holmes, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 05CA008711, 2006-Ohio-1310, ¶ 14-15. We find Holmes to be 

factually distinguishable from Bressi’s case, however, as the motion for a new trial in Holmes

was supported only by Holmes’ own self-serving affidavit, which was largely based on hearsay 

and unverified documents, e.g., handwritten notes allegedly written by prosecutors and letters 

purportedly written by his now deceased wife/victim claiming Holmes was innocent and that her 
8 

 

trial testimony was coerced by prosecutors. See id. at ¶ 5-6, 14-15. We therefore determined, 

based on the particular facts in Holmes, that “the trial court could have reasonably determined 

that the evidence submitted did not create a strong probability that it would change the result if a 

new trial was granted.” Id. at ¶ 15. Here, Bressi submitted more than his own self-serving 

affidavit and handwritten notes of unknown origins. Bressi submitted multiple affidavits from 

various individuals and offered the testimony of the receiver in his civil case, who testified 

regarding over 20,000 emails he personally received in his capacity as receiver from the 

attorneys of one of Bressi’s partners. The State’s reliance on Holmes is thus misplaced. 

{¶14} Apart from Z.B.’s testimony regarding his investigation of the emails, the trial 

court noted that Bressi offered four affidavits from A.N., P.S., A.C., and J.N. in support of his 

motion for a new trial, and the State offered one affidavit from the victim of Bressi’s sexual 

imposition conviction (“C.H.”). 

{¶15} A.N. is a former patient of Summit Pain Specialists (“Summit Pain”) who averred 

that C.H. called her in 2013 and asked her to contact the Stow Police Department to “implicate 

Dr. Bressi in inappropriate behavior.” C.H. purportedly became upset when A.N. “told her it 

was not true” and later called A.N. again to ask if she had contacted the police yet. C.H. became 

upset once more when A.N. said she had not contacted the police, and “ultimately had [A.N.] 

discharged as a patient from Summit Pain * * * in retaliation * * *.” A.N. averred that she had 

C.H. on speakerphone for the first phone call, and K.D.1

 overheard the conversation. C.H. 

averred, however, that she had no recollection of A.N. or K.D. and never telephoned or asked 

anyone to implicate Bressi in any inappropriate behavior. C.H. averred that she received calls 

 1

 An unsworn statement from K.D. that was attached to Bressi’s motion for leave was 

stricken from the record at the August 8, 2017, hearing and was, consequently, not considered by 

the trial court. 
9 

 

from individuals complaining about inappropriate behavior by Bressi, but told those individuals 

they had two choices: “not do anything or report to Stow Police.” C.H. further averred that she 

told these people she would have to “report this to Dr. Geiger.” 

{¶16} Although the trial court’s order granting Bressi’s motion for a new trial 

acknowledges P.S.’ affidavit, we note that the court explained at the August 8, 2017, hearing it 

would not consider P.S.’ affidavit as newly discovered evidence because she had been on 

Bressi’s May 29, 2014, witness list for trial. The State argues that the trial court erred in relying 

on P.S.’ affidavit nonetheless, but apart from listing the affidavits “offer[ed]” by Bressi nothing 

further in the court’s order indicates any specific reliance on P.S.’ affidavit. 

{¶17} A.C. averred that she worked at Summit Pain from September 2012 until 2016, 

and currently works part-time assisting Z.B. She averred that C.H. was “continually in closed 

door meetings with Dr. Geiger and [R.G.]” prior to and after Bressi’s departure from Summit 

Pain. A.C. averred that, following Bressi’s trial, she was present at Summit Pain when C.H. said, 

“I can’t believe the jury believed me.” In responding to A.C.’s affidavit, C.H. averred that it was 

“true, there were discussions behind closed doors that involved may (sic) aspects of [Summit 

Pain].” In its order, the trial court specifically noted that C.H., in her affidavit, did not deny 

making the comment: “I can’t believe the jury believed me.” 

{¶18} C.H. further averred that her testimony at Bressi’s trial was truthful and she was 

never contacted by anyone who asked her to “embellish or alter [her] statement or testimony 

concerning James Bressi.” We previously summarized C.H.’s testimony at trial as follows: 

C.H. testified that she worked at Summit Pain Specialists for a total of about 

fourteen years. In January 2012, she accepted a position at the Stow location with 

Bressi. C.H. testified that she was familiar with Bressi because she previously 

had worked with him at a different office. She stated that, after she accepted her 

position at the Stow office, she worked as a triage nurse and was typically in the 

office from 7:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. One day in March or April 2012, C.H. 
10 

 

stayed late at the office to finish returning phone calls. When she finished, she 

went to say goodbye to Bressi and he asked how she was doing. C.H. testified that 

Bressi was aware that she was emotionally fragile at the time because he knew her 

son had died the previous year and he knew she was scheduled to have a heart 

catheterization performed. She testified that, when she told Bressi she did not 

care what happened to her, he asked her to come back to one of the office visit 

rooms. 

C.H. stated that Bressi closed the examination room door behind her and had her 

lie face down on the examination table. He then started massaging her back and 

shoulders. C.H. indicated that, when she lay down on the table, she placed her 

arms at her sides with her palms facing up. As Bressi massaged C.H., she began 

to feel his penis rubbing in her palm. C.H. testified that she attempted to stop the 

connection by placing her hands up over her head, but Bressi then took her arms, 

moved them back down to her sides, and continued to rub his penis against her 

hand. C.H. then tried again to move her arms, and Bressi once again moved them 

back into position, rubbing his penis against her. At that point, C.H. testified that 

she fisted both of her hands. Bressi then brought her left arm out to the side, 

massaged her hand until she opened it, and placed it back down on her side. He 

continued rubbing farther down her back until he reached the top of her pants and 

“scooted [them] down.” 

C.H. testified that Bressi began “touching at [her] vaginal area,” so she 

immediately told him that his touch was too personal. After she did so, Bressi 

stopped touching her near her vagina, but told her that “it wasn't for him,” but for 

her because she “needed the release.” C.H. testified that she had received OMTs 

from Bressi in the past, but they never involved him placing his fingers near her 

vagina or rubbing his penis on her. She testified that she began crying on the 

examination table and, while she continued to cry, Bressi had her roll onto her 

back. Bressi then performed several adjustments before C.H. told him that she 

needed to go. C.H. got down from the table and left the room. She testified that 

Bressi left the building with her and spoke to her as they were crossing the 

parking lot. According to C.H., Bressi told her that she needed to go home 

because she and her husband “needed to f* * * [their] brains out.” 

C.H. testified that she continued to work at Summit Pain Specialists after her 

encounter with Bressi because she could not afford to leave her job and similar 

nursing positions were not readily available. She testified that she waited two 

weeks to tell her husband what had happened because she was afraid of how he 

would react. Meanwhile, a few days after the incident, she told Dr. Geiger what 

Bressi had done. According to C.H., Dr. Geiger told her that she “had his 

backing” if she chose to contact the police, but that it was her decision to make. 

She testified that, following her disclosure to Dr. Geiger, a new office policy was 

put into effect. Per the policy, no medical massages were to be performed and no 

OMTs were to be performed without another employee being present in the room. 

C.H. testified that she never intended to report Bressi to the police, but the police 
11 

 

later contacted her while investigating Bressi. She then met with the police and 

gave a written statement. 

Bressi, 2016-Ohio-5211, at ¶ 27-30. 

{¶19} J.N. averred that she was present with her daughter (“A.N.”) and her daughter’s 

friend (“C.D.2

”) when A.N. received a phone call from C.H., which was on speakerphone. She 

averred that C.H. asked A.N. during the phone call to “implicate Dr. Bressi in inappropriate 

behavior and to contact Detective Swanson of the Stow Police Department.” J.N. averred that 

C.H. became upset when A.N. “said this wasn’t true and would not do so.” She averred that 

A.N. was discharged from Summit Pain shortly thereafter, “which began her downward spiral.” 

In response, C.H. averred that she had no recollection of J.N. 

{¶20} In granting Bressi’s motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial, the trial court 

determined that Bressi’s new evidence satisfied the second and third Petro prongs, i.e., the 

evidence has been discovered since the trial and is such that it could not have been, in the 

exercise of due diligence, discovered before the trial. See Holmes, 2006-Ohio-1310, at ¶ 11 

(“Crim.R. 33(B) calls for an initial determination that there was unavoidable delay.”). The State 

argues that because the names of all of Bressi’s patients were in his files, he could not establish 

that he was unable to discover the evidence from A.C., J.N., and A.N. prior to trial if he indeed 

exercised due diligence. “If a defendant could have discovered and produced evidence for trial, 

then that evidence is not the proper subject of a motion filed under Crim.R. 33(A)(6).” State v. 

Prade, 9th Dist. Summit No. 28193, 2018-Ohio-3551, ¶ 52. 

 2

 C.D., as named in J.N.’s affidavit, appears to be the same person as K.D., as listed in 

A.N.’s affidavit. The two names are almost identical, except for the spelling of the person’s first 

name. 
12 

 

{¶21} The trial court, however, was presented with evidence that Bressi maintained a 

client base of over 12,000 patients and paid an investigative firm approximately $30,000.00 to 

review and investigate claims and witnesses. Despite an extensive investigation, Bressi 

presented evidence that it was not feasible to interview over 12,000 individuals and, 

consequently, certain patients were not identified as possible victims before his trial was 

concluded. Z.B. also testified that the over 20,000 emails he reviewed were previously protected 

by attorney-client privilege and, thus, inaccessible until sometime after Bressi’s criminal trial. 

Thus, we cannot say that the trial court erred in determining that the new evidence was 

discovered after Bressi’s trial and could not have been, in the exercise of due diligence, 

discovered before the trial.

{¶22} The State next argues that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the 

new evidence was material to the issues, as the issue during trial was Bressi’s sexual imposition 

of C.H., not whether Bressi’s business partners wanted him out of their practice. This Court 

disagrees, however, as evidence that a plan or conspiracy was hatched among Bressi’s partners to 

have C.H. embellish or fabricate testimony against Bressi so they could obtain Bressi’s shares of 

the business without paying him is highly relevant to the issue of whether Bressi’s contact with 

C.H. during the OMT rose to the level of criminal activity. 

{¶23} The State also argues that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that 

Bressi’s new evidence was not merely cumulative to former evidence. The State directs us to the 

fact that Bressi testified at trial that he believed the charges against him were the result of a 

conspiracy promulgated by his Summit Pain partners in an attempt to force him out of the 

practice. As such, the State contends that the new evidence merely confirms the version of 
13 

 

events Bressi presented to the jury, in which his partners were trying to “buy out” and then “box 

out” Bressi. 

{¶24} However, we see no error in the trial court’s determination that Bressi’s newly 

discovered evidence is not merely cumulative to the evidence he presented at trial. Bressi 

testified at trial that he was being secretly watched without his knowledge or permission to see if 

he was doing anything inappropriate, which occurred at the behest of both Dr. Geiger and a law 

firm that had represented Summit Pain in the past. He thus surmised that Dr. Geiger was 

conspiring to oust him from their practice, and likewise testified that he “believe[d] Dr. Geiger 

had talked to [C.H.] and [had given] her a heads-up about possibly [his] manipulation techniques 

not being above board.” Bressi, 2016-Ohio-5211, at ¶ 41. 

{¶25} At the August 8, 2017, hearing, Z.B. testified as to voluminous, previously 

unavailable emails between Bressi’s partners discussing ousting him from the practice without 

paying him for his shares and discussing having C.H. embellish her testimony against Bressi. 

The affidavits Bressi attached to his motion also provided new evidence that C.H. was involved 

in closed door meetings with Bressi’s partners and allegedly urged another individual to contact 

the police to implicate Bressi in inappropriate behavior. A.C.’s affidavit provided new evidence 

that C.H. told others at Summit Pain, “I can’t believe the jury believed me” sometime after 

Bressi’s trial, which C.H. chose not to deny in her own affidavit. Email and affidavit evidence of 

Bressi’s partners’ and C.H.’s motivations and involvement in a conspiracy to falsely implicate 

Bressi in criminal actions, as well as evidence of C.H.’s post-trial remarks, goes well beyond 

what was available and offered through Bressi’s opinion testimony at trial. See, e.g., State v. 

Knoefel, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2017-L-150, 2019-Ohio-267, ¶ 63 (Westcott Rice, J., concurring in 

part and dissenting in part). We therefore cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in 
14 

 

determining that Bressi’s newly discovered evidence is not “merely cumulative,” as it instead 

provides a “much stronger foundation” for Bressi’s personal belief that he was conspired against, 

and is “different, in kind and character” from the evidence he presented at trial. See State v. 

Beavers, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 22588, 2009-Ohio-5604, ¶ 35. 

{¶26} The State further argues that the trial court abused its discretion in determining 

that Bressi’s new evidence does not merely impeach or contradict former evidence and further 

discloses a strong probability that it will change the result if a new trial is granted. A Crim.R. 33 

motion for a new trial must demonstrate the strong probability that newly discovered evidence 

would have led to a verdict of not guilty. Prade at ¶ 30. The “mere possibility” that a new trial 

might lead to a different outcome is not a sufficient basis upon which to grant a motion for a new 

trial. Id. at ¶ 41. It is important to note that “[e]vidence that impeaches or contradicts the 

evidence at trial is not excluded from consideration per se, but the character of that evidence is 

relevant to whether a different result is a strong probability.” Jalowiec, 2015-Ohio-5042, at ¶ 38. 

“[T]he nature of such evidence requires that a trial court exercise circumspection in determining 

whether newly discovered evidence of that character would create a strong probability of a 

different result, because such evidence quite often will not be likely to change the outcome.” Id., 

quoting Dayton v. Martin, 43 Ohio App.3d 87, 90 (2d Dist.1987). 

{¶27} The trial court found that Bressi’s new evidence does not merely impeach or 

contradict; rather, it presents a “different version of the events.” At trial, the State presented 

testimony from Summit Pain employees regarding Bressi’s noticeable change in appearance 

beginning in 2011 and 2012. Bressi’s hygiene was now suffering as he wore wrinkled and 

unclean clothes, failed to keep his hands clean, and appeared disheveled and more irritable than 

usual. See Bressi, 2016-Ohio-5211, at ¶ 31-32. Moreover, a new written office policy was 
15 

 

instituted regarding Bressi and his female patients, which required a female chaperone to be 

present when an OMT was performed on a female. See id. at ¶ 32. The jury also heard evidence 

that Bressi was terminated from Summit Pain for violating the chaperone policy and for sexually 

abusing patients. See id. at ¶ 33, 36. 

{¶28} The trial court determined that this evidence stood in “stark contrast” to the 

evidence presented at the August 8, 2017, hearing and in Bressi’s motion for a new trial, 

whereby “significant malfeasance” was occurring at Summit Pain involving undocumented 

distributions, the destruction of documents and financial records, and a conspiracy to “box 

[Bressi] out” without paying him while having C.H. embellish her allegations of criminal 

conduct. The court found this to be a “substantial change in the underlying facts of the case,” as 

the jury was never presented with any evidence indicating criminal or fraudulent actions by 

Bressi’s partners or a conspiracy to “frame” him for sexual assault. The court determined that 

Bressi’s new evidence not only corroborated his trial testimony that someone else may have 

caused C.H. to believe Bressi’s contact with her during the OMT was inappropriate, but also 

revealed “a criminal conspiracy against Bressi perpetrated by the owners of [Summit Pain] and 

C.H.” The court further found that the new evidence “reveals significant credibility issues for 

C.H., whose testimony as a victim was essential in supporting the only conviction against Bressi 

* * *.” Given that Bressi never denied performing the OMT on C.H., and his trial testimony was 

largely consistent with C.H.’s testimony as to the basic facts of that particular incident, the trial 

court ultimately found that there was a strong probability this newly discovered evidence would 

change the result of a new trial. 

{¶29} We cannot agree with the State’s argument that the trial court abused its 

discretion in reaching its conclusions here. C.H. was undoubtedly the State’s key witness in 
16 

 

Bressi’s lone conviction for sexual imposition, and she testified in graphic detail regarding 

Bressi’s alleged criminal behavior during the OMT. See Bressi, 2016-Ohio-5211, at ¶ 27-30. 

Bressi did testify at trial as to a possible conspiracy against him and his belief that Dr. Geiger 

may have given C.H. a “heads-up” that Bressi’s OMT techniques were not “above board,” but no 

evidence of this possible conspiracy beyond Bressi’s own speculation was presented to the jury. 

See id. at ¶ 41. While the State argues that evidence C.H. embellished or fabricated her 

allegations would merely impeach her trial testimony, “‘newly discovered evidence impeaching 

key testimony may alone be sufficient to grant a new trial if introduction of the evidence at trial 

probably would have changed the result.’” State v. Fortson, 9th Dist. Summit No. 18513, 1998 

WL 224941, *3 (May 6, 1998), quoting State v. Brumback, 109 Ohio App.3d 65, 85-86 (9th 

Dist.1996). See also State v. Robertson, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-160681, 2017-Ohio-7225, ¶ 

23-24 (determining that testimony supporting a motion for a new trial presenting a different 

version of events from that offered by the State at trial, which calls into question the only 

testimony identifying the defendant as the perpetrator, is “more than merely impeaching or 

contradictory to the evidence presented at trial.”). 

{¶30} Upon careful review of the record in this matter, this Court cannot conclude that 

the trial court abused its discretion in determining that Bressi’s newly discovered evidence 

satisfied all six Petro factors. The trial court’s decision is not unreasonable, i.e., lacking a sound 

reasoning process supporting it, nor is it arbitrary or unconscionable. See AAAA Ents., 50 Ohio 

St.3d at 161; Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d at 219. Bearing in mind the highly deferential standard of 

review applicable in this matter, we must conclude that the trial court acted within its sound 

discretion in granting Bressi’s motion for a new trial. 

{¶31} The State’s sole assignment of error is overruled. 
17 

 

III. 

{¶32} The State’s sole assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Summit 

County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. 

Judgment affirmed. 

 

 There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

 We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common 

Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy 

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27. 

 Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of 

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the 

period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is 

instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the 

mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. 

 Costs taxed to Appellant. 

 

 THOMAS A. TEODOSIO 

 FOR THE COURT 

HENSAL, J. 

SCHAFER, J. 

CONCUR. 
18 

 

APPEARANCES: 

SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and JACQUENETTE S. CORGAN, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellant. 

MICHAEL T. CALLAHAN, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.