DocketNumber: No. CV93 030 93 31 S
Citation Numbers: 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 4255-G
Judges: MORAN, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 5/31/1996
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The petitioner contends that a new trial is warranted because there is newly discovered evidence in that the victim has recanted his earlier trial testimony. Specifically, the petitioner claims that, after his trial, the victim learned of the shooter s CT Page 4255-H identity and has now unquestionably identified the shooter as someone other than the petitioner. The identity of the shooter was apparently a material issue at trial, as none of the witnesses testified that they actually saw the petitioner shoot the victim. Accordingly, the petitioner claims that he has been unjustly convicted and that a new trial is warranted.
"The standard that governs the granting of a petition for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence is well established. The petitioner must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: (1) the proffered evidence is newly discovered, such that it could not have been discovered earlier by the exercise of due diligence; (2) it would be material on a new trial; (3) it is not merely cumulative; and (4) it is likely to produce a different result in a new trial." Asherman v. State,
The standard governing petitions for new trials based on recanted testimony is set forth in Pradlik v. State,
At the original trial, the victim testified that he did not know who shot him and that, although he saw the petitioner in the area, he did not actually see the petitioner shoot him. Rather, he testified that other people told him the petitioner had shot him. He also testified that he heard or saw gunshots coming from an area near some trees. He further testified that, sometime after the incident, the petitioner had threatened him about testifying against him at trial. CT Page 4255-I
At the hearing on the petition for a new trial, the victim testified that, subsequent to the original trial, he learned that the person who shot him was in fact his friend who had been standing near him at the time of the incident. According to the victim, sometime after the original trial, his friend admitted to him that the gun his friend had been carrying had accidentally discharged, hitting the victim in the toe. The victim testified that once this information was made known to him, he immediately told his mother who called petitioner's attorney. (T. 5, 6).1
In his brief, the petitioner claims that the allegedly new evidence meets the requirements for granting a new trial set forth in State v. Asherman, supra,
Notwithstanding petitioner's arguments to the contrary, the court finds the victim's credibility to be questionable. There were several inconsistencies in his testimony at the hearing. For example, his testimony seriously conflicted as to when he learned that it was his friend who shot him. He first testified that he was not mistaken when he testified at petitioner's trial, but rather that he was lying because he was young and scared and did not want his friend to go to jail. (T. 6, 15). Later in the hearing, the victim testified that he did not know who shot him at the time of trial and that he only learned this information from his friend in 1992. (T. 25). Thus, the court is not "reasonably CT Page 4255-J well satisfied that the testimony given by [this] witness [at the original trial was] false"; Pradlik v. State, supra,
Accordingly, the court finds that the petitioner has not met his burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that he is entitled to a new trial.
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner Dennis Dickerson's petition for a new trial is denied.
JOHN W. MORAN, JUDGE