holding that “to constitute grounds for a new trial,” newly discovered evidence must, among other things, “render a different result probable on the retrial of the case” (footnote and citation omitted)
How later courts described this case
- holding that “to constitute grounds for a new trial,” newly discovered evidence must, among other things, “render a different result probable on the retrial of the case” (footnote and citation omitted)
- noting that appellate courts only provide guidance for purposes of remand on "(issues that are fully briefed" (emphasis added)
- overturning trial court's decision-' that newly discovered evidence, was , "merely cumulative" because the evidence was "different [in] kind and nature" than the evidence introduced at trial, and hence "certainly could have a different quality in the eyes of the jurors who assess[ed] the -credibility of witnesses”
- stating that “[an] inference is made that the natural consequences of that act were intended to occur” and that “intent is of necessity proven by circumstantial evidence”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ZIMMERMAN, Justice
(concurring):
I join in the grant of a new trial, and I concur in the opinion of the Chief Justice, except that portion that discusses the sufficiency of the evidence to support a verdict of guilty of first degree murder.
As I see the case, the only evidence that could support a finding of a knowing or intentional killing, the essential element of a first degree murder charge, is the testimony of Ronald Peterson, an inmate at the Utah State Prison, to the effect that defendant said he had killed his son and had gone out to the marina a day before the killing. Absent an advance trip to the site of the disposition of the corpse, all the evidence is equally consistent with an unplanned, accidental killing, and a finding of an intentional killing is nothing more than speculation.
Although we have ordered a new trial so that defendant can place before the jury evidence that Peterson fabricated his testimony in order to receive better treatment from the State, the majority seems to intimate that under our prior decisions, a first degree murder verdict could be upheld if the jury disbelieved Peterson’s testimony, *800 something that may occur on retrial. I cannot join in that intimation.
STEWART and DURHAM, JJ., concur in the concurring opinion of ZIMMERMAN, J.