Opinion ID: 901815
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Whether the Circuit Court Erred in Denying a New Trial.

Text: [¶ 43.] Muhm finally argues that the circuit court should have granted a new trial because of newly discovered evidence. We review a circuit court's denial of a motion for a new trial under SDCL 23A-29-1, the same as its civil counterpart SDCL 15-6-59(b). Whether a new trial should be granted is left to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, and this Court will not disturb the trial court's decision absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion. State v. Gehm, 1999 SD 82, ¶ 12, 600 N.W.2d 535, 539. For a new trial to be granted, Muhm must demonstrate: (1) the evidence was undiscovered by the movant at the time of trial; (2) the evidence is material, not merely cumulative or impeaching; (3) that it would probably produce an acquittal; and (4) that no lack of diligence caused the movant to fail to discover the evidence earlier. Id. ¶ 13, 600 N.W.2d at 540. [¶ 44.] In this case, we find that the evidence was merely cumulative and impeaching, and there is no probability it would have produced an acquittal. The newly-discovered evidence was the post-trial disclosure of the seventeen year-old stepbrother, S.R., who admitted to his therapist to repeatedly sexually molesting C.S. in the presence of Muhm and J.C. S.R. also admitted watching pornographic movies on the couch in his mother's home. [¶ 45.] Muhm argues that S.R.'s statement that there were pornographic movies in his mother's home contradicts the mother's testimony that there was no pornography in her home. Muhm contends that if the boys watched pornography in their mother's home, it could have provided a basis for the boys' detailed knowledge of sexual abuse. Muhm also argues that S.R.'s admission of molesting C.S. needed to be explored in order to corroborate Muhm's claim that the boys' allegations baffled him. Muhm finally argues that S.R. was 6'2 and 300 pounds, and the jury should have been able to see him, listen to his testimony, and view his demeanor on the stand in order to determine his place in the whole scheme of things. Although these arguments establish that it may have been useful to explore S.R. as a possible witness, they do not establish a probability that the evidence would have resulted in an acquittal. [¶ 46.] Furthermore, as the circuit court correctly noted, the evidence was a doubled-edged sword that may have hurt more than helped the defense. The court observed that the contradictions would probably [not] have resulted in a not guilty verdict, particularly in light of the damning portions of the evidence. This observation was based on S.R.'s disclosure that in addition to abusing one of the boys, he had been a victim of Muhm's abuse, and a witness to Muhm's abuse of the boys. The evidence was also merely cumulative and impeaching because, as the circuit court noted, the defense had already done a first-rate job of pointing out inconsistencies in the children's testimony during the course of the trial. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial. [¶ 47.] Affirmed. [¶ 48.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and KONENKAMP, MEIERHENRY, and SEVERSON, Justices, concur.