Opinion ID: 1577932
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: RCr 10.02 and 10.06 Motion for a New Trial

Text: Carneal moved for a new trial pursuant to RCr 10.02 and 10.06 on the ground that he was mentally incompetent at the time of the shootings, as established by the reports of Dr. Cornell and Dr. Schetky. Motions for a new trial brought pursuant to RCr 10.02 and 10.06 must be served not later five (5) days after return of the verdict. Claims premised on newly discovered evidence may be brought within one year of the judgment, or at a later time if the trial court finds that good cause so permits. RCr 10.06(1). Carneal argues that such good cause exists. Though not expressly stated, the trial court evidently concluded that good cause did not exist to extend the time period for the motion. The decision to grant a new trial lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and there must be a showing that this discretion was abused to warrant reversal. Foley v. Commonwealth, 55 S.W.3d 809 (Ky.2000). [I]n order for newly discovered evidence to support a motion for a new trial it must be `of such decisive value or force that it would, with reasonable certainty, have changed the verdict or that it would probably change the result if a new trial should be granted.' Commonwealth v. Harris, 250 S.W.3d 637, 640-41 (Ky. 2008), quoting Jennings v. Commonwealth, 380 S.W.2d 284, 285-86 (Ky.1964). Further, a motion for new trial based upon newly discovered evidence must be accompanied by an affidavit showing that Appellant exercised sufficient diligence to obtain the evidence prior to his trial. Collins v. Commonwealth, 951 S.W.2d 569, 576 (Ky.1997). Carneal's motion for a new trial challenges his competency at the time of the offense, as opposed to his RCr 11.42 motion, which is directed towards his competency to plead guilty. However, both motions fail for the same reasona lack of diligence in discovering the supposed new evidence. We look to the factually analogous case of United States v. Allen, 554 F.2d 398 (10th Cir.1977). There, the trial court rejected a petition for a new trial on the ground that new psychiatric reports declaring Allen insane at the time of the offense were not previously undiscoverable. Prior to trial, questions were raised about Allen's competency to stand trial and his competency at the time of the offense. His treating psychiatrist submitted a pre-trial evaluation diagnosing Allen with manic depressive reaction which caused intermittent periods of depression and an inability to function normally. A psychiatrist who evaluated Allen five months after trial, however, opined that he suffered from schizophrenic reaction that involved a disabling psychotic process. Further, the new evaluation indicated that Allen's failure to highlight his illness to counsel was the result of the illness itself. The trial court denied the petition, concluding that the severity of Allen's mental condition could have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence prior to trial. In upholding the trial court, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals did not challenge the validity of the new psychiatric evaluations: It is true that a factual basis for a substantial insanity defense was developed in the post-trial affidavits of Dr. Martin and the psychologist. Id. at 403. However, the evaluations did not constitute new evidence warranting a re-trial, as Allen and trial counsel were both made aware of his mental condition prior to trial. Allen had previously been hospitalized for mental illness and had even undergone electroshock therapy for his condition. The trial court further noted that, even assuming it is in the nature of Allen's illness to conceal its nature and severity, there is no contention that his attorneys... labored under the same handicap. Id. Even if we assume that Dr. Cornell's report constitutes newly discovered evidence, we cannot agree that it was undiscoverable at the time Carneal pled guilty. Obviously, Carneal and his trial counsel were aware of a mental condition, ultimately accepting a plea of guilty but mentally ill. Before the plea, Dr. Cornell diagnosed Carneal with schizotypal personality disorder, which he indicated may involve temporary psychotic episodes. While his present diagnosis of schizophrenia is much more severe, the possibility that Carneal was in the midst of a psychotic episode at the time of the shooting was recognized prior to sentencing. More notably, Carneal was given the more severe diagnosis of schizophrenia as early as 1999, yet his motion for a new trial was not filed until 2004. For these reasons, we do not believe the trial court abused its discretion in rejecting Carneal's motion for a new trial as untimely.