# State v. Condon

> Ohio Court of Appeals · April 23, 2004 · 157 Ohio App. 3d 26

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3754495

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. CONDON, Appellant
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** April 23, 2004
- **Citations:** 157 Ohio App. 3d 26; 2004 Ohio 2031; 808 N.E.2d 912
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Painter
- **Judges:** Doan, Painter, Hildebrandt
- **Cited by:** 21 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3754495

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding newly discovered evidence when “[t]he defendant did not know that the witness would ultimately testify in his favor”

## Opinion text

Painter, Judge,
concurring separately.
{¶ 28} I concur in Judge Doan’s opinion. Sometimes the minority rule is correct. We have all but ordered the trial court to grant a new trial. And the new trial should be scheduled immediately — Condon starts serving his sentence for this count next week.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3754495. Public record. Not legal advice.