People v. Rao, 491 Mich. 271

Defendant Malini Rao was convicted of second-degree child abuse and later sought a new trial based on allegedly newly discovered evidence (May 2009 rib x-rays and radiology reports).
Trial evidence included extensive medical opinions pro and con regarding nonaccidental trauma; defense sought to use post-trial x-ray information to support alternating theories.
Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, remanding for an evidentiary hearing on whether the new evidence would likely affect the outcome.
This Court reaffirmed the four-part Cress test for newly discovered evidence and held Rao did not satisfy the first and third parts.
Court emphasized that if evidence was known before trial, it cannot be newly discovered and reasonable diligence must be shown to produce it at trial.
Concluded Rao’s proffered evidence was not newly discovered, and Rao failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence to obtain and present it at trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the May 2009 x-rays constitute newly discovered evidence under Cress	Rao argues the later x-rays were newly discovered evidence	People contends Rao knew or could have obtained the evidence earlier	Not newly discovered under Cress (first and third parts not satisfied)
Whether Rao exercised reasonable diligence to obtain the evidence at trial	Rao asserts lack of access justified diligence	People argues Rao failed to take timely steps, including seeking court orders	Rao failed to satisfy the reasonable-diligence requirement (third part)
Whether the evidence could have changed the outcome at retrial	Rao contends new findings would have undermined the abuse conclusion	People argues the existing record sufficiently supports guilt; new evidence unlikely to create reasonable probability of different result	Not satisfied as Rao did not satisfy first and third parts; no retrial warranted on these grounds

Cress v. Canfield, 468 Mich 678 (2003) (reaffirmed four-part test for newly-discovered evidence in criminal trials)
Canfield v City of Jackson, 112 Mich 120 (1897) (established diligence and finality considerations in new-trial motions)
People v Lemmon, 456 Mich 625 (1998) (abuse of discretion standard for new-trial motions; Cress framework)
People v Babcock, 469 Mich 247 (2003) (further standards for post-trial relief)
Webert v Maser, 247 Mich 245 (1929) (new-trial motions disfavored; caution in granting relief)
Purman v People, 216 Mich 430 (1921) (availability of witnesses and continuance considerations in diligence)
Burton v. People, 74 Mich App 215 (1977) (unknown-to-defendant at trial; diligence implications)
Newhouse v. People, 104 Mich App 380 (1981) (trial strategy and production of witnesses; diligence)
Terrell v. Terrell, 289 Mich App 553 (2010) (newly available vs. newly discovered; diligence implications)
United States v Turns, 198 F.3d 584 (2000) (procedural diligence considerations in withholding evidence)