Opinion ID: 6325455
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The new-trial claim

Text: {¶ 59} “The ‘unavoidably prevented’ requirement in Crim.R. 33(B) mirrors the ‘unavoidably prevented’ requirement in R.C. 2953.23(A)(1).” State v. Barnes, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2017–0092, 2018-Ohio-1585, ¶ 28. As we discussed above, Bethel made a prima facie claim that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the Withers information. But we also determined above that the Withers information is immaterial for Brady purposes. Thus, even assuming arguendo that Bethel would be entitled to a hearing on his motion for a new trial, the hearing would be an exercise in futility, because we have concluded that Bethel’s Brady claim, which is the basis of his motion, is without merit. Therefore, it is unnecessary to remand Bethel’s motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial under Crim.R. 33 to the trial court, because we find that the motion for a new trial would be without merit. 21 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO