Opinion ID: 2630572
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Utah Case Law Concerning Newly Discovered Evidence

Text: ¶ 102 Chief Justice Durham's interpretation is also fundamentally incompatible with Utah precedent providing for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. State v. James, 819 P.2d 781, 793 (Utah 1991) (holding that to constitute grounds for a new trial, newly discovered evidence must, among other things, render a different result probable on the retrial of the case (footnote and citation omitted)). Newly discovered evidence is, by definition, evidence that was not available at the start of the first trial. Id. By requiring that the parties be returned to the circumstances that existed prior to the first trial, Chief Justice Durham's interpretation would, by its terms, preclude the admission of newly discovered evidence on retrial. ¶ 103 In contrast, no such conflict exists with an interpretation of the same position language that affords the parties the same flexibility they had at the first trial in terms of presenting evidence. As in the first trial, on retrial both parties would be able to present all evidence currently available to them, including newly discovered evidence.