newly discovered evidence rule in West Virginia

2024Va. 762 , 277 S.E.2d 606 (1981). 23 A prior omnibus habeas corpus hearing is res judicata as to all matters raised and as to all matters known or which with reasonable diligence could have been known; however, an applicant may still petition the court on the following grounds: ineffective assistance of counsel at the omnibus habeas corpus hearing; newly discovered evidence; or, a change in the law, favorable to the applicant, which may be applied retroactively.[25] A. Petition for Habeas Corpus on the Basis of Newly-Discovered Evidence Mr. White’s petition was filed utilizing the newly-discove

2013The circuit court denied petitioner’s motion because: (1) the alleged newly discovered evidence was not of the quality that will be considered under the newly discovered evidence standard, citing Ohio Gas Co. v. Walker, 394 N.E.2d 348 (Ohio Ct. App. 1978) (holding that unsworn allegations of operative facts contained in a motion for relief from judgment or in a brief attached to the motion are not sufficient evidence upon which to grant a motion to vacate judgment”); (2) petitioner was not diligent in discovering the evidence, nor did he explain why it took so long to obtain such an elementary

2007"We have repeatedly recognized . . . the distinction between the disclosure of . . . evidence, which is constitutionally mandated under Brady and its progeny, and the production of evidence pursuant to a court order implementing discovery." State v. Fortner, 182 W.Va. 345 , 353 n. 5, 387 S.E.2d 812 , 820 n. 5 (1989).

2007"We have repeatedly recognized . . . the distinction between the disclosure of . . . evidence, which is constitutionally mandated under Brady and its progeny, and the production of evidence pursuant to a court order implementing discovery." State v. Fortner, 182 W.Va. 345 , 353 n. 5, 387 S.E.2d 812 , 820 n. 5 (1989).

1982In State v. Stewart, 161 W.Va. 127 , 239 S.E.2d 777, 784 (1977), after reviewing authorities in other jurisdictions, we summarized the rule in this fashion: “[I]n most such cases where relief is granted, the witness whose testimony is impeached by the newly-discovered impeachment evidence is the principle or sole witness for the government without whose testimony there would be no conviction.” (Footnote omitted) We applied much the same rule in a civil action, Cremeans v. Myers, 136 W.Va. 157 , 67 S.E.2d 28 (1951), where the plaintiff was seeking to recover damages for personal injuries.

1982In State v. Stewart, 161 W.Va. 127 , 239 S.E.2d 777, 784 (1977), after reviewing authorities in other jurisdictions, we summarized the rule in this fashion: “[I]n most such cases where relief is granted, the witness whose testimony is impeached by the newly-discovered impeachment evidence is the principle or sole witness for the government without whose testimony there would be no conviction.” (Footnote omitted) We applied much the same rule in a civil action, Cremeans v. Myers, 136 W.Va. 157 , 67 S.E.2d 28 (1951), where the plaintiff was seeking to recover damages for personal injuries.

1982See also State v. Frazier, 162 W.Va. 935 , 253 S.E.2d 534 (1979); State v. Farley, 143 W.Va. 445 , 104 S.E.2d 265 (1958); Phenix Fire Insurance Co. v. Virginia-Western Power Co., 81 W.Va. 298 , 94 S.E. 372 (1917). 3 We have concluded previously that even though the newly-discovered evidence is of an impeaching nature, it may be sufficient to award a new trial where the witness sought to be impeached by the newly-discovered evidence was the principle or sole witness for the opposing party.

1982See also State v. Frazier, 162 W.Va. 935 , 253 S.E.2d 534 (1979); State v. Farley, 143 W.Va. 445 , 104 S.E.2d 265 (1958); Phenix Fire Insurance Co. v. Virginia-Western Power Co., 81 W.Va. 298 , 94 S.E. 372 (1917). 3 We have concluded previously that even though the newly-discovered evidence is of an impeaching nature, it may be sufficient to award a new trial where the witness sought to be impeached by the newly-discovered evidence was the principle or sole witness for the opposing party.

1982See also State v. Frazier, 162 W.Va. 935 , 253 S.E.2d 534 (1979); State v. Farley, 143 W.Va. 445 , 104 S.E.2d 265 (1958); Phenix Fire Insurance Co. v. Virginia-Western Power Co., 81 W.Va. 298 , 94 S.E. 372 (1917). 3 We have concluded previously that even though the newly-discovered evidence is of an impeaching nature, it may be sufficient to award a new trial where the witness sought to be impeached by the newly-discovered evidence was the principle or sole witness for the opposing party.

1982See also State v. Frazier, 162 W.Va. 935 , 253 S.E.2d 534 (1979); State v. Farley, 143 W.Va. 445 , 104 S.E.2d 265 (1958); Phenix Fire Insurance Co. v. Virginia-Western Power Co., 81 W.Va. 298 , 94 S.E. 372 (1917). 3 We have concluded previously that even though the newly-discovered evidence is of an impeaching nature, it may be sufficient to award a new trial where the witness sought to be impeached by the newly-discovered evidence was the principle or sole witness for the opposing party.

1979At the hearing on the newly discovered evidence, the State produced Robert Taylor, a State trooper, and Alex Gaiman, an P.B.I. agent, both of whom had been with Davidson and Buckley and had inspected the engine at Bennett’s house, and who testified they had seen the numbers on the engine. 5 The newly discovered evidence rule contained in Halstead v. Horton, 38 W.Va. 727 , 18 S.E. 953 (1894), will not apply where the State has suppressed exculpatory material.

1979At the hearing on the newly discovered evidence, the State produced Robert Taylor, a State trooper, and Alex Gaiman, an P.B.I. agent, both of whom had been with Davidson and Buckley and had inspected the engine at Bennett’s house, and who testified they had seen the numbers on the engine. 5 The newly discovered evidence rule contained in Halstead v. Horton, 38 W.Va. 727 , 18 S.E. 953 (1894), will not apply where the State has suppressed exculpatory material.