OSC Grants Review to Address Significant Motion for New Trial Issues
by: Ryan • December 29, 2014 • no comments
On review, the issues are:
(1) Can an affidavit given after a verdict is rendered that elaborates on facts allegedly known by the parties before the trial qualify as newly discovered evidence under ORCP 64 B(4)?
(2) In reviewing the trial court's denial of defendant's motion for a new trial under ORCP 64 B(4), did the Court of Appeals correctly apply the "abuse of discretion" standard of review?
(3) In reviewing the trial court's denial of defendant's motion for a new trial under ORCP 64 B(4), did the Court of Appeals properly analyze whether the alleged new evidence could have been discovered before the trial by the exercise of "reasonable diligence"?
(4)Does an affidavit signed after trial, containing evidence that the affiant refused to provide at trial because the affiant invoked a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, constitute newly discovered evidence under ORCP 64 B(4)?
(5) For newly discovered evidence to justify a new trial under ORCP 64B(4), is it sufficient to show that the newly discovered evidence, "if believed, will probably change the result"?
What's worth noting is that these questions don't arise out of a criminal case but a civil one. Greenwood Products, Inc. v. Greenwood Forest Products, Inc., 264 Or App 1, 330 P3d 662 (2014)(on review from the Multnomah County Circuit Court).
If you're even considering a motion for new trial, I imagine the COA's opinion is a must-read, even if it may now have a limited shelf-life.
