Court Opinion

ID: 9790001
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:45:07.165202+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:25.647211
License: Public Domain

COMPTON, Justice (dissenting). The motion, for a new trial was addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. It was within the sole province of the trial court to make the decision, and we should not disturb that- ruling unless the evidence of perjury- before the trial court was so “clear and convincing * * * as to leave no room for doubt as to the existence of the evidence.” State v. Fuentes, 66 N.M. 52, 342 P.2d 1080, 1084. Had Points testified forthrightly at the hearing on the motion, probably his recantment would have been entitled to great weight, but this he did not do. At the trial of Fuentes, he testified there was a third party present but would not give his name. Testifying for Fuentes on the motion for rehearing, he swore the third party previously mentioned was not present but still another person was present. He also refused to name this person. In view of this evidence, the court was warranted in believing the witness Points was covering up for both of his accomplices, throwing suspicion of the guilt on a party or parties whom he knew the court could never reach. Firmly believing the majority has reached the wrong conclusion in holding that the trial court has abused its sound judicial discretion in denying the motion, I dissent