Court Opinion

ID: 9854105
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:00:58.940842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:55.841151
License: Public Domain

HALL, Chief Justice
(dissenting):
I dissent because I am not persuaded that the Court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial. As was observed in State v. Harris,1
The denial of [a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence] will be deemed an abuse of discretion only in such instances where there is a grave suspicion that justice may have been miscarried because of the lack of enlightenment on a vital point, which the new evidence will supply; and the other elements attendant on obtaining a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence are present. If there be evidence before the court upon which reasonable [persons] might differ as to whether or not the defendant is guilty, the trial court may deny a motion for a new trial.
The evidence defendant sought to introduce in support of his motion for a new trial was not in fact newly discovered evidence.2 Rather, it was cumulative, irrelevant, or inadmissible.3 It was therefore insufficient to support his motion.4
ZIMMERMAN, J., concurs in the dissenting opinion of HALL, C.J.
STEWART, J., does not participate herein; DAVIDSON, Court of Appeals Judge, sat.

. 30 Utah 2d 77, 80, 513 P.2d 438, 439-40 (Utah 1973).

. State v. Williams, 712 P.2d 220 (Utah 1985).

. State v. Gellatly, 22 Utah 2d 149, 449 P.2d 993 (Utah 1969).

. See supra note 1.