Case Name: PEOPLE v. McALLISTER
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1969-02-26
Citations: 16 Mich. App. 217
Docket Number: Docket No. 6,011
Parties: PEOPLE v. McALLISTER
Judges: BEFORE: Fitzgeeald, P. J., and R. B. BueNs and BeoNSON, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 16
Pages: 217–218

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v. McALLISTER
1. New Trial — Newly Discovered Evidence.
The rule concerning a new trial on the basis of newly-diseovered evidence requires that the following 4 factors be present: (1) that the evidence is newly discovered, (2) that the evidence is not merely cumulative, (3) that the evidence is such as to render a different result probable on retrial, and (4) that the defendant could not with reasonable diligence have produced it at trial.
2. New Trial — Newly Discovered Evidence — Criminal Law — Affidavit.
An affidavit by one other than defendant convicted of damaging a safe and breaking and entering that he and an accomplice committed the offense and that defendant did not participate was newly discovered and not cumulative, went to the heart of the defense that the defendant did not commit the crime, and requires the granting of a new trial (MCLA §§ 750.110, 750.531).
Appeal from Recorder’s Court of Detroit, Joseph A. Gillis, J.
Submitted Division 1 January 15, 1969, at Detroit.
(Docket No. 6,011.)
Decided February 26, 1969.
Patrick McAllister was convicted of damaging a safe and breaking and entering. Defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solictor General, William L. Cabalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Samuel J. Torina, Chief Ap pellate Lawyer, and Thomas P. Smith, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Reference for Points in Headnotes
[1, 2] 39 Am Jur, New Trial §§ 156 et seq., 164 et seq.
Kenneth A. Webb, for defendant on appeal.
BEFORE: Fitzgeeald, P. J., and R. B. BueNs and BeoNSON, JJ.

Opinion:
Pee Oueiam.
Defendant was found guilty of damaging a safe, OL 1948, § 750.531 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.799), and breaking and entering, MCLA § 750-.110 (Stat Ann 1968 Cum Supp § 28.305).
Defendant moved for a new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence. The new evidence is an affidavit of Gregory Johnson stating that he and one Larry West committed the offense and the defendant did not participate.
The test for granting a defendant a new trial based on newly-discovered evidence is as follows:
"The rule concerning granting a new trial on the basis of newly-discovered evidence requires that the following 4 factors must be present: (a) That the evidence is newly discovered, (b) that the evidence is not merely cumulative, (c) that the evidence is such as to render a different result probable on retrial, (d) that the defendant could not with reasonable diligence have produced it at trial." People v. Keiswetter (1967), 7 Mich App 334, 343, 344.
Johnson's statement was newly discovered and is not cumulative. It goes to the heart of McAllister's defense, which is that he did not commit the crime.
The trial judge should have granted the motion for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.