Opinion ID: 1328932
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Standard for a New Trial

Text: For petitioner to show he is entitled to a new trial, pursuant to State v. Spann, supra , he must show the evidence: (1) is such that it would probably change the result if a new trial were granted; (2) has been discovered since the trial; (3) could not in the exercise of due diligence have been discovered prior to trial; (4) is material; (5) is not merely cumulative or impeaching. We find petitioner has failed to meet the requirement for a new trial that the evidence is such that it would probably change the result if a new trial were granted. We do not believe it is probable a jury would find Hess credible given her prior inconsistent statements. [6] Beyond these problems with Hess's credibility, we believe, as the referee found, that the known facts about Trooper Smalls's shooting do not correlate with Hess's claim that she killed the trooper. We further find the consistency of Harbert's statements to police and at petitioner's trial undermines the possibility that the result of a new trial would be different. Harbert has consistently claimed petitioner killed both Swanson and Trooper Smalls. Accordingly, we adopt the referee's findings and deny the motion for a new trial. DENIED. TOAL, C.J., and BURNETT, J., concur. WALLER and PLEICONES, JJ., dissenting in separate opinions.