People v. Soojian, 190 Cal. App. 4th 491

Soojian was convicted by jury of kidnapping, attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and robbery with multiple firearm enhancements arising from an armed assault on Joyce and Morgan Ahumada.
After trial, Soojian discovered evidence suggesting his cousin Bolin was the actual perpetrator and moved for a new trial under §1181,1(8).
The trial court denied the new-trial motion; on appeal this Court previously reversed for wrong standard and remanded for reconsideration using the correct standard.
On remand, Soojian presented additional evidence (including expert and lay opinions, and DMV/vehicle history) and argued Bolin was the real perpetrator; the People contended the court should apply the correct standard but that the new evidence was not probable to change the result.
The trial court again denied the motion; this Court held the trial court abused its discretion by applying the wrong standard and that a new trial should be granted based on the newly discovered evidence.
The opinion vacates the denial, directing a new trial order, and explains why Martinez and Sutton guide the remedy in this rare case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court applied the correct standard for a new-trial motion based on newly discovered evidence	Soojian argues the court used an improper standard (hung jury/probability of a better result)	People concede a wrong standard was used but urge harmless error	Trial court erred; standard misapplied and requires reversal
Whether the added evidence was properly considered and could render a different result on retrial	Evidence was newly discovered and would likely affect the verdict	Some evidence could have been presented earlier; not all qualifies as newly discovered	Yes; the evidence created a reasonable possibility of a different result at retrial and must be considered
What remedy is appropriate on remand for a case with newly discovered evidence	Grant a new trial; evidence likely to yield different result	Remand with proper standard or affirm conviction if prejudice minimal	Vacate denial and order a new trial; not merely remand for reconsideration under the correct standard
Whether the presence of Bolin as the actual perpetrator is supported by the new evidence to justify a new trial	New evidence directly undermines the People’s case and implicates Bolin	Evidence does not conclusively prove Bolin; issues remain for retrial	New evidence supports retrial and likelihood of a different verdict; justifies new trial

People v. Sutton, 73 Cal. 243 (Cal. 1887) (establishes five-factor test for new-trial based on newly discovered evidence; abuse of discretion standard)
Martinez v. Superior Court, 36 Cal.3d 816 (Cal. 1984) (limited Martinez exception to the diligence rule for newly discovered evidence; remedy to avoid miscarriage of justice)
People v. Dyer, 45 Cal.3d 26 (Cal. 1988) (distinguishes Martinez and cautions against broad application; diligence not strictly required when fairness demands relief)
People v. Brown, 46 Cal.3d 432 (Cal. 1988) (discusses standard of review in some contexts; relevant to ‘a different result’ concept (hung jury) albeit limited here)
People v. Delgado, 5 Cal.4th 312 (Cal. 1993) (reiterates Sutton standards and the role of new evidence in a new-trial analysis)
People v. Turner, 8 Cal.4th 137 (Cal. 1994) (references standards for evaluating new-trial motions and evidentiary considerations)