Court Opinion

ID: 9626288
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:07:17.881193+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:25.036075
License: Public Domain

BRETT, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. In my opinion, the trial court abused its discretion in overruling appellant’s motion for new trial on newly discovered evidence.
The facts at trial revealed appellant was identified as one of two men who burglarized a home in Union City in November, 1979. Appellant also was linked to the crime through the license number on a vehicle used in the burglary. The trial in this matter occurred over two years later.
Appellant testified he did not commit the burglary. Although he could not remember his exact whereabouts on the day in question, appellant thought he was in Sayre working with a seismograph crew. The car allegedly involved in the burglary had been abandoned in Oklahoma City a few days earlier, he said.
After the trial, appellant’s mother continued her investigation of the case. She discovered Gordon Click, who produced records proving categorically that appellant was working for him in Sayre, Oklahoma on the day of the burglary.
*949In order to prevail on a motion for new trial on newly discovered evidence, the appellant has the burden of proving the new evidence is “material to the defendant, and ... could not with reasonable diligence have [been] discovered before trial.” 22 O.S.1981, § 952.
There is little doubt that this new evidence is highly probative; it was documentation that appellant was eighty miles away on the day of the burglary. And, I believe the appellant acted with due diligence in procuring this evidence. He testified at a hearing on his motion for new trial that he had contacted every person he could remember working for during the period in question. He forgot about Mr. Click, since he had worked there only a couple of days.
Because of the high probative value of the evidence, I would find that the trial court abused its discretion in overruling the motion for new trial. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.