Opinion ID: 1349971
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Discovery of New Evidence:

Text: Lodermeier contends he is entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence via SDCL 15-6-59(a)(4). [10] In determining whether a new trial should be granted, the trial court is required to find the new evidence is not cumulative and there is a reasonable probability that it would produce a different result on retrial. Willis, 396 N.W.2d at 153-54. We do not believe this newly discovered evidence would lead to a different result on retrial. Lodermeier claims after the trial he found out Johnson buried the serial number of the large Bobcat on one of Lodermeier's rental properties. Lodermeier's motion for a new trial is supported by Cleda Gerhart's affidavit which states Lee Erickson told her Johnson told him that he (Johnson) buried serial numbers by a lake. Erickson filed an affidavit denying this story. Similarly, Johnson, by affidavit, denies having buried any serial numbers. Thus, the only way this evidence could be presented at a new trial is through Gerhart's testimony. This presents an obvious hearsay problem. See State v. Rufener, 401 N.W.2d 740, 743-44 (S.D.1987); State v. Gage, 302 N.W.2d 793, 798-99 (S.D. 1981). Lodermeier's attempt to sidestep this problem is not persuasive. At trial, Gerhart would not be permitted to testify that Johnson buried the numbers. Thus, if a new trial were conducted, there is no reasonable probability the outcome would be different. Finally, Lodermeier asserts he should have been granted a new trial because new evidence has surfaced regarding the credibility of a prosecution witness, one Joan Bresson. Bresson was one of several witnesses who testified Lodermeier had asked them to concoct stories or evidence. She testified Lodermeier had asked her husband to commit perjury on his behalf. Bresson's husband was in prison at the time of trial. Bresson testified she expected no benefit for herself or her husband in exchange for her testimony. In his new trial motion, Lodermeier claimed Bresson had smuggled hacksaw blades to another inmate. Because Bresson was not charged, Lodermeier concludes she was offered leniency in exchange for her trial testimony. The former prosecutor and the law enforcement officers supposedly involved in the deal have filed affidavits indicating no such deal was made. We have repeatedly held when newly discovered evidence would merely impeach or discredit a trial witness, a new trial is not warranted. Willis, 396 N.W.2d at 154; Kaseman, 273 N.W.2d at 729; State v. Furlow, 87 S.D. 634, 638, 213 N.W.2d 705, 707 (1973). In addition, we note Bresson's testimony regarding Lodermeier was cumulative. Two other witnesses testified Lodermeier asked them to manufacture evidence. There is no reasonable probability that a different outcome would be reached on retrial if this new evidence were permitted. Thus, Lodermeier is not entitled to a new trial based on this newly discovered impeachment evidence. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lodermeier's motion for a new trial. The jury verdict and judgment of the trial court is affirmed. MILLER, C.J., and HENDERSON, SABERS and AMUNDSON, JJ., concur.