To amend sections 181.25, 2929.06, 2945.79, 2945.80, 2945.81, 2953.21, and 2953.23 and to enact section 2945.811 of the Revised Code to allow a person to file a motion for a new trial or a petition for postconviction relief if the person produces new evidence that would establish a strong probability of a different result at trial.
HB177 would expand Ohio’s postconviction and new-trial procedures for criminal defendants who obtain newly discovered evidence after trial. The bill adds a new category of newly discovered evidence that can support relief: evidence that, if considered at a new trial, would establish a strong probability of a different result. It also creates a new section governing motions for new trial based on that standard, including filing requirements, preliminary judicial review, dismissal of patently frivolous motions, discovery, hearings, and appointment of counsel for indigent applicants in appropriate cases.
The bill also amends the state’s postconviction relief statutes to mirror that same “strong probability of a different result” standard and to allow petitions based on that type of evidence. It revises related procedures for filing, discovery, hearings, amendments, and appeals, including special rules for death-sentenced petitioners such as broader page limits and appointed counsel. In addition, the bill makes conforming changes to the death-sentencing resentencing statute and to the Criminal Sentencing Commission’s duties, while repealing the existing versions of the affected sections.
HB177 would change Ohio criminal procedure by creating a new avenue for defendants to seek a new trial or postconviction relief when newly discovered evidence is strong enough to create a substantial likelihood of a different verdict. It would amend several sections of the Revised Code governing new trials, postconviction petitions, and related appellate and discovery procedures, and it would add a new section setting out the standards and process for these motions. The bill would affect convicted defendants, prosecutors, trial courts, and, in capital cases, appointed counsel and appellate courts, while also updating related death-penalty resentencing provisions and the sentencing commission’s reporting duties.
The bill appears to be framed as a criminal-justice reform measure aimed at improving access to relief when new evidence emerges after conviction. Because the bill was only introduced and has no recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to measure. Based on the text alone, the proposal is generally pro-defendant and focused on correcting potential wrongful convictions, especially in serious felony and capital cases.
The main likely point of contention is the bill’s expansion of postconviction remedies, which could increase litigation, discovery, and court workload for prosecutors and trial courts. Opponents of broader relief may argue that the new standard could encourage more motions and weaken finality of convictions, while supporters would emphasize the need to address wrongful convictions when credible new evidence emerges. The bill also includes special procedures for death-sentenced petitioners, including appointed counsel and expanded filing limits, which may draw additional scrutiny because of the stakes and the potential administrative burden.