Rowe v. Commonwealth 2008-CA-916 and 2008-CA-1824
Opinion dated November 18, 2011, Affirming To be published.
The issue in this case was whether the defendant’s two RCr 10.02 motions for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence were properly denied by a trial court without an evidentiary hearing. In the first appeal, the trial court properly held that the RCr 10.02 motion was deficient because the defendant failed to file an affidavit that the evidence could not have been discovered before trial even with the exercise of due diligence. In the second appeal, the trial court properly held the defendant made two errors.
First, he failed to file an affidavit detailing the new evidence and explaining why the evidence was not discovered before trial. Second, the second RCr 10.02 motion did not comply with the procedural requirements of RCr 10.06.
Trial tip: courts are serious about making defendants follow deadlines and procedures.
Contributed by Robert Yang
