Opinion ID: 1106114
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Should a New Trial Be Ordered?

Text: This is one of those unfortunate cases where the trial judge failed to make any findings of fact whatsoever. See Schmitt v. State, 560 So.2d 148, 151 (Miss. 1990). While the State invites us to apply a clearly erroneous standard of appellate review, we are unable to do so where, as here, there are no findings of fact in the record. We also are unable to determine from this record if the trial judge applied the correct legal standard in denying Tobias's request for a new trial. In a case such as this where the defendant's conviction will stand or fall on the credibility of an accomplice's recanting testimony, the trial judge should state in his order, or otherwise place into the official record, his specific findings of fact and the legal standard applied to those facts in reaching his decision. This is precisely what was done in Yarborough v. State, 514 So.2d 1215 (Miss. 1987) where the circuit judge made extensive findings of fact. We held in Yarborough there was substantial credible evidence in the record supporting the trial court's finding that the witness's original testimony at trial was correct. We decline to reach that conclusion in the case at bar where the record is wholly devoid of any fact-finding. In the final analysis, we hold that Tobias proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Perryman committed perjury, that Perryman's recantation was newly discovered evidence which could not have been discovered prior to trial by the exercise of due diligence, that Perryman's revelations are material to the issue and not merely cumulative or impeaching, and that the absence of Perryman's testimony at a new trial creates a substantial probability that a different result would be reached without the perjured testimony. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL. HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, PITTMAN, BANKS and McRAE, JJ., concur.