State v. Davis

A former judgment may be set aside and a new trial granted in an action where there has been a trial by jury on the motion of the party aggrieved for any of the following causes materially affecting the substantial rights of such party: (1) irregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury, or adverse party, or any other of the court, or abuse of discretion, by which such party was prevented from having a fair trial; (2) misconduct of the jury of prevailing party; and (4) newly discovered evidence, material for the party making the application, which such party could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at trial. ORCP 64 B(1), B(2), and B(4).

Defendant appealed conviction for unlawful possession of a short-barreled rifle. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, irregularity in the proceeding, or misconduct by the prevailing party. On appeal, Defendant argued that the addition of the video evidence called into question the accuracy of the officer’s versions of inventorying, seizing, and logging the property in Defendant’s backpack, particularly the officer’s testimony that he did not go through the backpack and the backpack did not contain a knife sheath. In response, the State argued that the newly obtained video evidence would not have changed the result if a new trial was granted. A former judgment may be set aside and a new trial granted in an action…for any of the following causes materially affecting the substantial rights of such party: (1) irregularity in the proceedings of the court; (2) misconduct of the prevailing party; and (4) newly discovered evidence, material for the party making the application. ORCP 64 B(1), B(2), and B(4). The Court of Appeals held that the booking video would not have changed the results had a new trial been granted and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that the inaccuracy in the officer’s testimony did not materially affect Defendant’s substantial rights. Affirmed.