State v. Bressi, 2020 Ohio 4

James P. Bressi co-owned Summit Pain Specialists and used osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT); beginning in 2012 multiple patients alleged inappropriate sexual contact.
A grand jury indicted Bressi on 27 counts relating to 11 victims; a jury convicted him of one count of sexual imposition (victim C.H.) and acquitted him on the rest; sentence and sexual-offender classification followed and the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
After appeal, Bressi sought leave to file a Crim.R. 33(A)(6) new-trial motion based on newly discovered evidence; the trial court granted leave and later granted the new-trial motion over the State’s objection.
The new evidence chiefly comprised affidavits from former employees and testimony from a court-appointed receiver (Z.B.) who reviewed over 20,000 emails obtained during related civil/bankruptcy proceedings that allegedly showed Summit Pain partners discussing ousting Bressi and encouraging C.H. to embellish her allegations.
The State appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion (challenging authentication, hearsay/admissibility, diligence, materiality, and whether the evidence merely impeached prior proof).
The Ninth District affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that the newly discovered evidence satisfied the Petro factors for granting a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Bressi)	Held
Authentication of emails	Emails were never produced or authenticated at the hearing, so inadmissible	Receiver Z.B. received the emails from partner’s counsel and testified to their provenance	Court: Z.B.’s testimony met the low Evid.R. 901 threshold; authentication satisfied for §33 analysis
Hearsay / admissibility	Emails and Z.B.’s testimony contained inadmissible hearsay and thus cannot support a new trial	Emails and attendant testimony could be admitted at a new trial (multiple hearsay exceptions/impeachment uses)	Court: trial court acted within discretion in finding the evidence could be admissible at a new trial
Due diligence / unavoidable delay	Bressi had patient lists and could have discovered witnesses earlier	Over 12,000 patients made exhaustive pretrial investigation impracticable; emails were privileged and unavailable until later bankruptcy waivers	Court: reasonable to find evidence was discovered after trial and not discoverable earlier despite diligence
Materiality / likelihood to change verdict	Evidence merely impeaches or corroborates Bressi’s trial theory and is cumulative; not likely to produce acquittal	Emails and affidavits show a concerted conspiracy to oust Bressi and to have C.H. embellish testimony, undermining the State’s key witness	Court: evidence was material, not merely cumulative, and created a strong probability the result would differ at a new trial; Petro factors met

Matthews v. State, 81 Ohio St.3d 375 (Ohio 1998) (state may appeal trial court new-trial order by leave)
Petro v. State, 148 Ohio St. 505 (Ohio 1947) (six-factor test for new trial based on newly discovered evidence)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)
AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redev. Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (Ohio 1990) (unreasonable decision lacks sound reasoning process)
Pons v. Ohio State Medical Board, 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (Ohio 1993) (appellate court may not substitute its judgment for trial court on discretionary matters)
Morris v. State, 132 Ohio St.3d 337 (Ohio 2012) (standard for reviewing abuse of discretion)
Williams v. State, 43 Ohio St.2d 88 (Ohio 1975) (newly discovered evidence must be admissible at a new trial)
Brumback v. State, 109 Ohio App.3d 65 (Ohio Ct. App.) (impeaching evidence can justify new trial if it would probably change outcome)
Dayton v. Martin, 43 Ohio App.3d 87 (Ohio Ct. App. 1987) (circumspection required where new evidence merely impeaches)