Court Opinion

ID: 9878063
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 16:39:01.928004+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:31.308296
License: Public Domain

VANMETER, J.,
DISSENTING:
I respectfully dissent. In my view, sufficient probative evidence existed to' support the -convictions of Clark and Hardin, such that neither the trial court nor this Court can • state that the new evidence in this case ■ is “of such decisive 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) (emphasis added). As a result, the trial court’s decision to vacate the- convictions - and grant Clark and Hardin a new trial was an abuse of discretion. Bedingfield v. Com*349monwealth, 260 S.W.3d 805, 810 (Ky. 2008). I would vacate the Meade Circuit Court’s order vacating Clark’s and Hardin’s convictions and ordering a new trial.