Johnson v. State, 2017 Ark. 206

Daniel Curtis Johnson was convicted by a Mississippi County jury of first-degree murder and a firearm enhancement for the June 22, 2015 shooting death of Vincent Stone; sentenced to life plus 15 years consecutive.
At trial two eyewitnesses, Jimmy Aldridge Jr. and Chardrick Mitchell, testified they saw Johnson and another man approach and shoot Stone in a crowded park; both identified Johnson as an assailant.
After conviction, defense discovered a June 28, 2015 Facebook post by Aldridge that defense claimed suggested Aldridge had not actually seen the shooting and was merely commenting that few others came forward.
Johnson filed a Rule 33.3(b) motion for a new trial based on the allegedly newly discovered Facebook post; the circuit court held a hearing two weeks after trial and denied the motion that same day.
At the hearing Aldridge testified the post was sarcastic and consistent with his trial testimony (that he saw the murder and was one of the few witnesses to come forward); trial testimony, prior statements, and cross-examination all consistently identified Johnson as the shooter.
The circuit court found the Facebook post at most cumulative impeachment and not a material recantation; the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, applying standards for newly discovered evidence and abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of a motion for new trial based on a newly discovered Facebook post was erroneous	Johnson: Aldridge’s Facebook post shows Aldridge did not witness the shooting and would have materially affected the verdict	State: The post is not a recantation, is consistent with trial testimony, and at best offers cumulative impeachment that would not change the outcome	Court affirmed: post did not constitute newly discovered evidence warranting a new trial; denial was not an abuse of discretion

McIntosh v. State, 340 Ark. 34 (recognizes trial court’s discretion on new-trial motions; reversal requires abuse of discretion)
Wilcox v. State, 342 Ark. 388 (movant must show new evidence would have impacted outcome and that due diligence was used)
Cherry, 341 Ark. 924 (trial court’s factual determination on new-trial motions not reversed unless clearly erroneous)
Williams v. State, 252 Ark. 1289 (newly discovered evidence is one of the least favored grounds for a new trial)
Bennett v. State, 307 Ark. 400 (new trial warranted where material perjured testimony is shown, e.g., undercover officer’s false testimony)
Hayes v. State, 169 Ark. 883 (impeachment-only evidence generally does not justify a new trial)
Whittaker v. State, 173 Ark. 1172 (same: impeachment of witness credibility alone insufficient)
Taylor v. State, 299 Ark. 123 (evidence that only attacks credibility is not grounds for new trial)
Gross v. State, 242 Ark. 142 (contradictory evidence must make a different result probable to warrant new trial)
Bussey v. State, 69 Ark. 545 (recantation can justify a new trial when it materially undermines trial testimony)