Background
A jury convicted Jason Gregory Noble of first-degree-felony aggravated assault-family violence for striking KLK, a member of his household, in the head with a handgun. Noble maintained that he had struggled with KLK to disarm him and struck KLK with his elbow rather than the gun. The trial court assessed a 35-year prison sentence.
KLK did not testify at trial, but the State presented his contemporaneous statements to medical personnel and law-enforcement officers, photographs and medical records documenting his injuries, body-camera footage, and testimony describing a circular forehead wound consistent with the handgun’s barrel. After trial, Noble sought a new trial based on KLK’s affidavit stating that Noble struck him with his forearm while they struggled over the pistol and never hit him with the firearm. The trial court denied the motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Noble’s motion for new trial. The affidavit did not have to be treated as newly discovered evidence because the defense already knew about KLK’s affidavits of nonprosecution and presented substantially the same struggle-and-disarming account at trial and sentencing.
The trial court also could reasonably find that KLK’s post-trial account was not probably true. It conflicted with KLK’s statements immediately after the incident, his statements to hospital personnel and investigators, witness testimony, and physical evidence—including photographs of a barrel-shaped wound on his forehead. Those circumstances provided a basis for disbelieving the recantation, so the affidavit did not establish entitlement to a new trial or show that the trial evidence was false.
Key Takeaways
- Evidence is not newly discovered when the defense knew the substance of it at trial and presented the same essential theory to the jury.
- A trial court may reject a victim’s post-trial recantation when contemporaneous statements and physical evidence provide a basis for doubting it.
- Appellate courts give substantial deference to a trial court’s credibility findings on a motion for new trial, including findings based solely on affidavits.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the demanding standard for obtaining a new trial based on a post-verdict affidavit. A defendant must show more than a later account favorable to the defense; the evidence must satisfy every element of the newly discovered evidence test, including that it was previously unavailable and is probably true.
For family-violence prosecutions, the opinion also confirms that a conviction and the denial of a new trial may stand despite the victim’s absence from trial and later recantation when contemporaneous statements, medical evidence, photographs, and other evidence support the verdict.