When reviewing the disposition of a motion to suppress evidence, the Supreme Court defers to the trial court's findings of fact. The burden is on the government to demonstrate exigent circumstances exist to overcome the presumption that a warrantless search is unreasonable. Error by the court in instructing the jury on the law of the case is not reversible error if the erroneous instruction could only have favored, not prejudiced, the defendant, even though the defendant is found guilty. The coroner's opinion the victim died from a homicidal shotgun wound is properly admitted into evidence even though the coroner initially formed his opinion without knowing the length of the shotgun and based his opinion, in part, on the fact the defendant concealed the victim's body. A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence one of the prosecution's witnesses may have lied while testifying about a peripheral issue.
Affidavits impeaching the testimony of a witness are generally insufficient to justify a new trial.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying a new trial motion based upon newly discovered evidence if the evidence is not likely to change the result of the original trial. Officers' decision to seek a search warrant was not prompted by prior illegal entry, but was based on legally obtained independent information discovered prior to illegal entry. A farmer who plows an unimproved section line does not violate the criminal statute prohibiting section line plowing, unless it obstructs usual travel. A trial court should normally instruct a jury only on the specific offense charged that is supported by the evidence. If the court fails to do so, the court abuses its discretion if it does not allow the defendant to withdraw the guilty plea later.