Opinion ID: 1227309
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: post trial motion

Text: Appellant's final contention is that the trial judge 15 erred in denying his motion for new trial on the grounds of after-discovered evidence. We disagree. Appellant's motion was made after the jury recommendation of death but prior to sentencing by the Court. His counsel advised the Court that he had received a telephone call from an unidentified person who would testify to specific instances of solicitation of sex by the victim. From a review of the record, we find the trial judge was correct in holding that Appellant failed to meet the criteria for granting a new trial on after-discovered evidence. In particular, Appellant failed to establish that the evidence could not have been discovered before trial by exercise of due diligence, or that it was not merely cumulative or impeaching. From the evidence introduced at trial it is clear that the victim's reputation was well known in the area. Moreover, a witness for Appellant testified that the victim routinely solicited sex. Appellant clearly failed to meet the criteria for a new trial on after-discovered evidence and his motion, therefore, was properly denied. We examined the entire record for other error and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm Appellant's conviction, reverse the death sentence, and remand for resentencing. Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded. LITTLEJOHN, C.J., and NESS, GREGORY and HARWELL, JJ., concur.