Roberson (Richard) v. State ( 2014 )

 consensual; (3) the victim was forced to testify against him; (4) the victim
was motivated by jealousy and revenge; and (5) the victim regretted
testifying against him and intends to seek assistance from a lawyer "about
[her] testimony and to get [him] out." Appellant argues that this new
evidence is relevant to the jury's determination of the victim's credibility,
bias, and motive to fabricate and therefore he is entitled to a new trial.
The district court found that the pictures and letters were not
new evidence because the information revealed in them was presented at
trial but "just put in a different way in these letters." And as to
appellant's allegation that the victim was coerced to testify, the district
court found that evidence had been introduced at trial that the victim felt
compelled to testify by her mother. Our review of the record shows the
following. The victim testified extensively about the nature of her
relationship with appellant and that she maintained contact with him
after the offenses when she returned to her home in Florida and continued
to express her love for him. The victim also testified that her mother
would "kick her out" if she did not testify against appellant. As to
appellant's contention that the victim's letters show that she was
compelled by parties other than her mother, we conclude that this claim is
speculative. While the victim expressed in her letters that she regretted
testifying against appellant, wanted to help free him from incarceration,
was jealous of appellant's relationship with his girlfriend, and was hurt
and upset with appellant, did not realize that appellant would be
subjected to lengthy incarceration, and still wanted to be with appellant,
she did not suggest that the offenses did not occur and in fact made
several references to appellant's actions.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
Having carefully reviewed the evidence at issue and the record
before us, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion
by denying appellant's motion for a new trial without conducting an
evidentiary hearing. See Servin v. State, 117 Nev. 775, 792, 32 P.3d 1277,
1289 (2001) (observing that the district court has broad discretion in
ruling on a timely motion for a new trial). Overall, the letters and pictures
show the victim's continued emotional attachment to appellant that was
evident at trial, and we conclude that the evidence is insufficient to satisfy
the showing necessary to warrant a new trial. See Mortensen v. State, 115
Nev. 273, 286, 986 P.2d 1105, 1114 (1999) (listing factors to consider in
ruling on a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence:• the
evidence is newly discovered; material to the defense; would not have been
discovered or produced for trial with the exercise of reasonable diligence;
is non-cumulative; would render a different result probable upon retrial;
does not solely contradict, impeach, or discredit a former witness, unless
the witness is so important that a different result would be reasonably
probable; and is the best evidence the case admits). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Hardesty
J.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A eD
cc: Hon. Michael Villani, District Judge
Clark County Public Defender
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A