State v. Charbonneau, 190 Vt. 81

Defendant was convicted at trial of domestic assault on his wife and simple assault on complainant after a confrontation arising from a 2007 incident.
The State attempted to impeach defendant’s wife with a prior written statement indicating threats and punches.
A neighbor corroborated that defendant charged complainant and began striking him; complainant testified defendant was the aggressor.
Defendant testified that complainant initiated the fight and that he acted in self-defense; he also conceded the neighbor’s testimony was true.
James, complainant’s son, later provided an affidavit claiming defendant was not the aggressor and that James witnessed events but did not come forward earlier.
Trial court denied a Rule 33 motion for a new trial based on the James affidavit; the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the denial on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the new evidence would probably change the result on retrial.	Charbonneau argues the James affidavit could change the verdict.	Charbonneau contends the new evidence would probably change the result.	No; the court reasonably found the new evidence would not probably change the result.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by assessing credibility of the new witness.	Charbonneau argues credibility assessment intruded on jury function.	Charbonneau defends the court’s credibility evaluation as proper.	No abuse; credibility assessment was proper in evaluating the quality of the new evidence.

State v. Dezaine, 141 Vt. 335 (Vt. 1982) (establishes the five-element test for new-trial motions based on newly discovered evidence)
State v. Charbonneau, 186 Vt. 583 (Vt. 2009) (reaffirms five-element standard for Rule 33 motions)
State v. Miller, 151 Vt. 337 (Vt. 1989) (requires that new evidence probably changes result, not merely possible change)
State v. Robillard, 146 Vt. 623 (Vt. 1986) (discusses the probability standard for new-trial claims)
State v. Mecier, 145 Vt. 173 (Vt. 1984) (explains that evidence must be likely to bring about acquittal on retrial)
State v. Unwin, 142 Vt. 562 (Vt. 1983) (endorses evidentiary hearings to evaluate credibility on new-trial motions)
State v. Schreiner, 183 Vt. 42 (Vt. 2007) (context for evaluating the State’s case in relation to new evidence)
State v. Haner, 182 Vt. 7 (Vt. 2007) (discusses trial court discretion in new-trial rulings)
State v. Hinchliffe, 186 Vt. 487 (Vt. 2009) (credibility considerations in evaluating new-evidence impact)