Opinion ID: 1891781
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Testimony of Tony Cole

Text: Appellant argues that the trial court erred in not granting Appellant's motion for new trial based upon the post-trial testimony from Cole that he had erroneously testified at trial that Appellant had been in possession of a prescription bottle with a relative's name on it. To warrant a new trial based on post-trial newly discovered evidence, the defendant must show: (1) the evidence has come to the knowledge of the defendant since the trial; (2) it was not owing to want of due diligence that it was not discovered sooner; (3) the evidence is so material that it would probably produce a different result on a new trial; and (4) it is not cumulative only or merely impeaching the credibility of the witness. The trial court has substantial discretion in ruling on a motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence, and we will not disturb its decision absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Whitfield, 939 S.W.2d 361, 367 (Mo. banc 1997) (citations omitted). Appellant argues that Cole's erroneous testimony at trial was critical to the State's case and played an instrumental role in the jury's arriving at a guilty verdict, because the State argued at trial that Appellant illegally obtained a false prescription. However, Appellant fails to satisfy the fourth part of the Whitfield testthat the evidence is not cumulative only or merely impeaching the credibility of the witness. Id. The evidence is cumulative of Appellant's testimony at trial that he did not illegally obtain the prescription. Also, Cole's testimony at the post-trial motion hearing did nothing more than impeach the credibility of his previous testimony, and Appellant had already effectively cross-examined Cole at trial. Appellant has failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion in overruling Appellant's motion for new trial.