Opinion ID: 1255548
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Witness recantations

Text: Louise asserts that the district court erred in denying her habeas petition and refusing to grant a new trial. She argues that because Kathleen and Robert recanted their trial testimony, her petition should be granted. The state, in turn, contends that the district court properly denied Louise's petition because Kathleen's and Robert's recantations were not credible. We conclude that the district court properly rejected the recantations and did not abuse its discretion in denying Louise's petition on this basis. In Sanborn v. State, 107 Nev. 399, 406, 812 P.2d 1279, 1284-85 (1991), we reiterated the general standard for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence as follows: (1) the evidence must be newly discovered; (2) it must be material to the defense; (3) it could not have been discovered and produced for trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; (4) it must not be cumulative; (5) it must indicate that a different result is probable on retrial; (6) it must not simply be an attempt to contradict or discredit a former witness; and (7) it must be the best evidence the case admits. Although we have formulated a general standard to be used in assessing motions for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, we have not yet articulated the precise standard under which witness recantations, either in the context of new trial motion or in a habeas petition, should be assessed. Appellant urges us, in recantation cases, to deviate from the general newly discovered evidence standard and to adopt the standard set forth in Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82, 87 (5th Cir.1928). Under this standard, a defendant should be granted a new trial based on recanted testimony if: (1) The court is reasonably well satisfied that the testimony given by a material witness is false. (2) That without it, the jury might have reached a different conclusion. (3) That the party seeking the new trial was taken by surprise when the false testimony was given and was unable to meet it or did not know of its falsity until after the trial. Larrison, 24 F.2d at 87-88. Thus, unlike the general standard, the Larrison standard requires a defendant to show that upon a new trial, an acquittal might result, not that an acquittal will probably result. A majority of circuits and several states have embraced the Larrison standard in recantation cases. See United States v. Krasney, 607 F.2d 840, 843 (9th Cir.1979) (recognizing the jurisdictions following Larrison ), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 942 (1980). The Larrison standard, however, has not always been applied in such cases. In Krasney, for instance, the Ninth Circuit noted that the Larrison standard had been criticized as requiring reversal in almost all cases of perjury, no matter how incidental the allegedly perjured statement. Krasney, 607 F.2d at 843-44. Thus, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the general probable acquittal standard utilized in most newly discovered evidence cases should apply in perjury cases, at least when the government did not knowingly or negligently use the perjured testimony at trial. Id. at 844-45. We agree with the Ninth Circuit that the probable acquittal standard articulated in our test for newly discovered evidence should be used in recantation situations, whether in the context of a new trial motion or a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. This conclusion is consistent with our previous cases dealing with recantation. See, e.g., Biondi v. State, 101 Nev. 252, 256-57, 699 P.2d 1062, 1065 (1985) (concluding that, with regard to a new trial based on recanted testimony, the issue is whether the recantation is evidence that would probably alter the trial result); Riley v. State, 93 Nev. 461, 462, 567 P.2d 475, 476 (1977) (concluding that a conviction obtained by the knowing use of perjured testimony is fundamentally unfair and must be set aside if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury). We also conclude, however, that the general new trial standard does not adequately emphasize the need for a finding that the recanting witness' trial testimony was false. Numerous courts have determined that recantations should be viewed with suspicion and that before granting a new trial, the trial court must be satisfied that the witness' trial testimony was false. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Sostre v. Festa, 513 F.2d 1313, 1318 (2d Cir.) (noting that traditionally, recantation of trial testimony is viewed with suspicion), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 841 (1975); State v. Frank, 298 N.W.2d 324, 329 (Iowa 1980) (recognizing that a court should look upon witnesses' recantations with suspicion and concluding that a new trial should not be granted unless the trial court is satisfied that the testimony of a material witness was false or mistaken); State v. White, 405 P.2d 761, 771 (Mont. 1965) (concluding that where it appears that witness' recantation is motivated by family pressure, recantation is not credible), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 1023 (1966); State v. Britt, 360 S.E.2d 660, 665 (N.C. 1987) (concluding that in considering witness recantations, the trial court must first be reasonably well satisfied that the testimony of material witnesses was false). A finding that the trial testimony was indeed false is essential in evaluating alleged perjury cases, and the trial court should first address this issue. In addition, the trial court must determine whether the evidence exposing the trial testimony as false was recently discovered and whether this evidence was available at trial through reasonable diligence. Finally, the trial court must determine whether the outcome at trial would probably have been different had the perjured testimony not been introduced at trial. In other words, in evaluating recantation cases, whether in the context of a new trial motion or a habeas petition, the trial court should apply the following standard: (1) the court is satisfied that the trial testimony of material witnesses was false; (2) the evidence showing that false testimony was introduced at trial is newly discovered; (3) the evidence could not have been discovered and produced for trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; and (4) it is probable that had the false testimony not been admitted, a different result would have occurred at trial. Only if each component is met should the trial court order a new trial. [Headnote 3] In the present case, the district court was not reasonably well satisfied that the trial testimony of Kathleen and Robert was false. Instead, the court concluded that their recantations were not credible. In particular, the court properly found that other evidence adduced at trial was consistent with the trial testimony of Kathleen and Robert, thus suggesting that their trial testimony was truthful. In addition, the court determined that Robert's recantations were incredible and that Kathleen's recantations contained false statements. This determination is supported by the record. Robert gave inconsistent recanting statements and made bald allegations of extraordinary prosecutorial misconduct. Kathleen's recantations were also inconsistent  in some of her writings, she stated that she did not intend to lie, and in others, she stated that she was instructed by the prosecutor to lie. Moreover, the court's conclusion that Kathleen's family had placed a great deal of pressure on her to recant is directly supported by Kathleen's statements in her Withdrawing of Deposion [sic]. Finally, the district court considered significant Kathleen's and Robert's refusal to testify at the hearing. The district court appropriately considered these witnesses' refusal to testify under oath and subject themselves to cross-examination in concluding that their recantations were not credible. [3] See State v. Landon, 848 P.2d 724 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993) (concluding that an out-of-court recantation is not a sufficient basis for a new trial). In short, we conclude that the district court's findings regarding the credibility of the recantations are supported by the record and that Louise has not demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion in denying her petition on this basis. In addition, as the district court was not reasonably well satisfied that the witnesses' trial testimony was false, it did not need to consider any of the other factors regarding witness recantations.