Court Opinion

ID: 9614732
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:27:40.605406+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:38.423822
License: Public Domain

HENDLEY, Judge (dissenting). I disagree with the majority. I agree that the denial of the third motion for a new trial should be reversed. However, I would remand the case to the trial court for a new determination consistent with New Mexico law. Defendant based his third motion for a new trial on the manager’s recantation of his identification and on the Sanman testimony. The trial court ruled that “ . the testimony of Mr. Sanman is not inherently believable and of itself does not entitle the defendant to a new trial.” First, the trial court did not address itself to defendant’s first ground, the manager’s recantation. Second, the trial court used an erroneous standard for determining whether the new evidence was such as ought to produce an opposite result on the merits. State v. Fuentes, 67 N.M. 31, 351 P.2d 209 (1960); see also State v. Houston, 33 N.M. 259, 263 P. 754 (1928). Here, the trial court did not make that determination. It merely determined that the new evidence was not inherently believable. Such will not suffice to deny a motion for a new trial. See State v. Gomez, 75 N.M. 545, 408 P.2d 48 (1965). Nevertheless, the trial judge heard the testimony of the manager and of Sanman. It saw their demeanor on the stand. Appellate courts should not strain to make determinations based on the cold words of transcripts when the trial court that heard and saw the evidence first-hand is in an infinitely better position to make decisions based on oral testimony. Further, the majority opinion sets forth a new standard when it states, “ . . . this new evidence might produce an opposite result before a jury.” (Emphasis added). This is contrary to Fuentes and Gomez. Also, the majority has gratuitously set bond when it was neither raised or requested. The record shows that the original appeal bond was $10,000.00. However, this was increased by the trial court to $15,000.00 “. . . for the reason that defendant failed to comply with the provisions of his former Appeal Bond.” This matter should be left with the trial court. It has the machinery to ascertain a proper appeal bond amount. I would therefore remand the case to the trial court, not for a new trial,' but for a determination of a new trial consistent with New Mexico law.