State v. Ramos
State v. Ramos, 2025 UT App 70 (Luthy, J.)
Criminal/Criminal Procedure
The Utah Court of Appeals held:
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial because the evidence proffered was not newly discovered, and with reasonable diligence, could have been discovered prior to and presented at trial.
- Practice tip: The court noted its holding did not foreclose the possibility that a defendant’s justified failure to anticipate the need for certain evidence could make otherwise discoverable evidence undiscoverable for purposes of a new trial motion.