Opinion ID: 2543513
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: martin i

Text: ¶ 24 Prior to Martin's first trial, he discovered Egan had accused another man of raping her in September 1996. Martin sought to discover the identity of the person who had been accused. The court denied Martin's motion. Following his conviction, Martin moved for a new trial, claiming among other things that his due process rights had been violated when the trial court denied his motion to discover the man's identity. The trial court denied the motion for a new trial, and Martin appealed. In Martin I, we unanimously held that Martin was entitled to discover the information he sought, which carried strong impeachment value and could significantly impact the central issue of the case-[whom] to believe about the circumstances of th[e] sexual contact. 1999 UT 72, ¶ 16, 984 P.2d 975. We therefore remanded the case for additional discovery: If Martin finds any new admissible evidence, the trial court must then hold a hearing to determine if Martin is due a new trial. In so doing, the trial court must decide whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the new evidence would lead a jury to an outcome more favorable to Martin. If so, and if the other factors laid out in [ State v. James, 819 P.2d 781 (Utah 1991),] are present ..., a new trial must be granted. Id. at ¶ 17 (footnote omitted).