Opinion ID: 2460107
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: The Trial Judge Was Within His Discretion in Denying the Motion for a New Trial

Text: ¶ 56 Except where questions of law are involved, a trial judge is invested with broad discretion in granting motions for new trial. The exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Williams, 96 Wash.2d 215, 221, 634 P.2d 868 (1981). Where questions of law are involved, we review them de novo. Pardee v. Jolly, 163 Wash.2d 558, 566, 182 P.3d 967 (2008). ¶ 57 Under CrR 7.5(a)(3), a trial court may grant a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. A defendant seeking a new trial on that ground must prove that the new evidence: (1) will probably change the result of the trial; (2) was discovered after the trial; (3) could not have been discovered before trial by the exercise of due diligence; (4) is material; and (5) is not merely cumulative or impeaching. A new trial may be denied if any one of these factors is absent. State v. Macon, 128 Wash.2d 784, 800, 911 P.2d 1004 (1996) (footnote omitted). The first prong of the analysis for newly discovered evidence requires the defendant to show that the new evidence will probably change the result of the trial. Id. (emphasis added). However, the third prong of Brady only requires the defendant to show the less exacting standard of reasonable probability, which does not require a defendant to demonstrate that the evidence if disclosed probably would have resulted in acquittal. Bagley, 473 U.S. at 680, 105 S.Ct. 3375 (opinion of Blackmun, J.) (emphasis added); Kyles, 514 U.S. at 434, 115 S.Ct. 1555. Because Brady materiality is a lower standard, nondisclosed evidence that fails to satisfy the materiality prong under Brady can never justify reversal of a court's decision to deny a new trial on a motion based on newly discovered evidence. See Josleyn, 206 F.3d at 151-52. Here, because the nondisclosed evidence is not material under Brady, either individually or collectively, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for a new trial on the asserted ground of newly discovered evidence.