Opinion ID: 2590797
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standards Governing Newly Discovered Evidence Claims

Text: ¶ 66 As we recently stated in State v. Montoya, newly discovered [e]vidence must meet three criteria in order to constitute grounds for a new trial: (1) it must be such as could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the trial; (2) it must not be merely cumulative; [and] (3) it must be such as to render a different result probable on the retrial of the case. 2004 UT 5, ¶ 11, 84 P.3d 1183 (second alteration in original) (internal quotation omitted). Generally, newly discovered evidence does not warrant a new trial where its only use is impeachment. State v. Boyd, 2001 UT 30, ¶ 28, 25 P.3d 985. [11] We afford trial judges `a wide range of discretion' in determining whether newly discovered evidence warrants the grant of a new trial. Montoya, 2004 UT 5 at ¶ 10, 84 P.3d 1183 (quoting State v. James, 819 P.2d 781, 793 (Utah 1991)). This deference is due, in part, to the superior position the trial judge holds when assessing the credibility of the new evidence, an essential component of the determination of whether the evidence would make a different result on retrial probable. See State v. Loose, 2000 UT 11, ¶ 18, 994 P.2d 1237. [I]t is appropriate in the context of a new trial motion based on newly discovered evidence to give the trial court the power to consider the testimony's probable weight as part of its determination as to whether that testimony would make a different result probable on retrial. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). [P]art of that weight certainly is the likelihood that a jury would find it credible. Id. ¶ 67 As a result, it is proper for the trial court, when confronted with a motion for a new trial due to newly discovered evidence, to consider the credibility of new witnesses as well as the manner in which new evidence meshes or clashes with evidence presented at trial. See id. If, after weighing these factors, the trial court determines that a different result on retrial is not probable, the motion must be denied. We will reverse a trial court's denial of a motion for a new trial only if the trial court abused its discretion. State v. Colwell, 2000 UT 8, ¶ 12, 994 P.2d 177.