MSC holds that impeachment evidence may be grounds for a new trial.

In People v Grissom, __ Mich __ (#140147, 7/31/2012) the Michigan Supreme Court held that impeachment evidence may be grounds for a new trial if it satisfies the four-part test set forth in People v Cress, 468 Mich 678 (2003).    In Cress, supra, the court held that a defendant must show that (1) the evidence itself, not merely its materiality, was newly discovered; (2) the newly discovered evidence was not cumulative; (3) the party could not, using reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced the evidence at trial; and (4) the new evidence makes a different result probable on retrial.

A material, exculpatory connection must exist between the newly discovered evidence and significantly important evidence presented at trial, but it may be of a general character and need not contradict specific testimony at trial. Also, the evidence must make a different result probable on retrial.   Not every instance will justify a new trial, but when it is established that  (1) the necessary exculpatory connection exists between the heart of the witness’s testimony at trial and the new impeachment evidence and (2) a different result is probable on retrial, a court should not refuse to grant a new trial solely on the ground that the newly discovered evidence is impeachment evidence. It should not refuse even if the new evidence is not directly contradictory to specific trial testimony.

At a motion for a new trial, the defendant is entitled to have the trial court carefully consider the newly discovered evidence in light of the evidence presented at trial. The trial court must evaluate the new evidence and determine whether there exists an exculpatory connection between it and the heart of the complainant’s testimony. With the caveat that the only facts that the trial court should consider in deciding whether to grant a new trial are those in the newly discovered evidence and those in the record.  Newly discovered impeachment evidence concerning immaterial or collateral matters cannot satisfy Cress. But if it has an exculpatory connection to testimony concerning a material matter and a different result is probable, a new trial is warranted.