State v. EtzlerState v. Etzler
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-Appellant, the State of Ohio, appeals a judgment of the Van Wert Municipal Court, granting Defendant-Appellee‘s, Barry Etzler, motion for a new trial. The State claims that the trial court abused its discretion by reviewing its own decisions, by failing to provide the State a chance to reply to Etzler‘s motion for a new trial, and by failing to provide a written statement containing the rationale upon which the court granted the motion. After reviewing the entire record before us, we find that the trial court did not have the authority to grant Etzler‘s motion for a new trial without conducting an oral hearing and that the trial court erred in not providing the State an opportunity to respond to the motion. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
{¶ 2} Etzler was accused of assaulting the mother of his three children, Lisa Etzler, at the 2003 Van Wert County Fair. Based on these accusations, Etzler was charged with domestic violence in violation of
{¶ 3} Prior to the sentencing hearing, Etzler filed a motion for a new trial pursuant to Civ.R. 33. Without conducting an oral hearing on the motion or giving the State an opportunity to respond, the trial court granted Etzler‘s motion, finding that irregularity in the proceedings prevented Etzler from receiving a fair trial. Accordingly, the trial court vacated Etzler‘s conviction and scheduled a new trial for March 5, 2004. From this judgment the State appeals, presenting three assignments of error for our review.
Assignment of Error I
The trial court erred in abusing its discretion in ruling that a new trial should be granted based on the motion for new trial as filed by Defendant-Appellee.
Assignment of Error II
The trial court erred by abusing its discretion when it issued its order for new trial without notice to Appellant and without opportunity for Appellant to respond to motion for new trial.
Assignment of Error III
The trial court erred by abusing its discretion when it reported no finding or rationale in granting new trial in entry as filed for the record on February 23, 2004.
{¶ 4} Because of the nature of these assignments, we will address them out of order.
Assignment of Error II
{¶ 5} In the second assignment of error, the State contends that the trial court erred in failing to afford it an opportunity to respond to Etzler‘s motion for a new trial. The State maintains that by granting the motion without allowing the State such an opportunity to respond, the trial court violated
{¶ 6} A trial court may grant a criminal defendant‘s motion for a new trial if it finds that the defendant‘s rights were materially affected by any of the following:
(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 attorney, or the witnesses for the state; (3) Accident or surprise which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against; (4) That the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence or is contrary to law. 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 shall pass sentence on such verdict or finding as modified; (5) Error of law occurring at the trial.
Crim.R. 33(A) .
{¶ 7}
An application to the court for an order shall be by motion. A motion, other than one made during trial or hearing, shall be in writing unless the court permits it to be made orally. It shall state with particularity the grounds upon which it is made and shall set forth the relief or order sought. It shall be supported by a memorandum containing citations of authority, and may also be supported by an affidavit. To expedite its business, the court may make provision by rule or order for the submission and determination of motions without oral hearing upon brief written statements of reasons in support and opposition.
Crim.R. 47 .
{¶ 8} This court has previously interpreted this rule in light of a motion for a new trial and held that “[a] trial court may dispose of a motion for new trial without oral hearing where a local rule of court implementing Criminal Rule 47 prescribes such action * * *.” State v. Wimer (June 4, 1987), 3rd Dist. Nos. 1-86-4, 1-86-5, unreported (Emphasis added), quoting State v. Collins (1977), 60 Ohio App.2d 116, paragraph eight of the syllabus, abrogation on other grounds recognized in State v. Brown (1993), 90 Ohio App.3d 674, 685. Absent a local rule implementing
{¶ 9} The Van Wert Municipal Court has adopted supplemental local rules; however, these rules do not address the manner in which the trial court must consider criminal motions. The only rule that addresses motions at all is Local Rule 8, which, in relevant part, provides that the court may set any motion for oral argument upon its own motion. This language does not set forth the procedure for determining motions without an oral hearing; rather, it only states that the trial court may conduct an oral hearing. Furthermore, Local Rule 8 is entitled “Civil Hearings” and does not contain any language relating to either criminal motions or
{¶ 10} According to the precedent established by this Court, the trial court had no authority to reach a determination on Etzler‘s motion for a new trial without conducting an oral hearing because it had not instituted a local rule establishing the procedure for making such a determination. Our holding today does not mean that a trial court, in considering criminal motions, does not have the discretion to decide whether to conduct an oral hearing. More accurately, it means that before a trial court can exercise that discretion and choose to dispose of a motion without an oral hearing, it must have implemented
{¶ 11} Additionally,
{¶ 12} In sum, before a trial court can consider a motion for a new trial in a criminal case without conducting an oral hearing, it must first implement local rules establishing the procedure for the submission and determination of such motions.
Assignments of Error I & III
{¶ 13} Based on the above decision, the State‘s first and third assignments of error have been rendered moot. Accordingly, they will not be addressed by this Court. See,
{¶ 14} Having found error prejudicial to the appellant herein, in the particulars assigned and argued, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Shaw, P.J. and Bryant, J., Concur