Opinion ID: 2590797
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: James and Leann Hill

Text: ¶ 69 In support of his claim that newly discovered evidence warrants the grant of a new trial, Pinder first offers the testimony of James and Leann Hill, David Brunyer's brother-in-law and sister. ¶ 70 The substance of James's testimony at the evidentiary hearing concerned only reservations about David Brunyer's character, and events that occurred prior to Pinder's trial, all of which James had related to the defense team prior to the commencement of trial. Not only was this evidence discoverable with reasonable diligence prior to the conclusion of trial, it actually was discovered, and the defense team simply chose not to make use of it. As a result, James's evidence cannot properly be defined as newly discovered evidence. ¶ 71 Similarly, the bulk of Leann's evidentiary hearing testimony contained no new information. [13] Leann testified that David Brunyer used drugs, was very manipulative, and had stored explosives at their mother's house. ¶ 72 Because the information provided by James and Leann was available or known to Pinder before the conclusion of his trial, that evidence cannot be classified as newly discovered and therefore cannot justify the grant of a new trial.