366 N.C. 532
N.C.2013Background
- Rhodes Jr. was convicted on 5 March 2010 of possession with intent to manufacture, sell, or deliver cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia.
- After his conviction, Rhodes Sr. gave a post-trial statement to a probation officer claiming the drugs belonged to him.
- The trial court granted a new trial, concluding the post-trial statement was newly discovered evidence under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1415(c).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order granting a new trial.
- The State pursued discretionary review, arguing the trial court erred in treating the statement as newly discovered evidence due to lack of due diligence.
- The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed, holding the information implicating Rhodes Sr. was available before the conviction and therefore not newly discovered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rhodes Sr.'s post-trial statement constitutes newly discovered evidence under §15A-1415(c). | State: information was available pre-trial; not newly discovered; due diligence not satisfied. | Rhodes, Sr.'s statement could be newly discovered with due diligence; trial court did not err in so finding. | Not newly discovered; due diligence not satisfied; trial court erred |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Beaver, 291 N.C. 137, 229 S.E.2d 179 (1931) (newly discovered evidence requires due diligence; burden on defendant)
- State v. Davis, 203 N.C. 316, 166 S.E. 292 (1932) (new trials for newly discovered evidence to be granted with utmost caution)
- State v. Casey, 201 N.C. 620, 161 S.E. 81 (1931) (burden on defendant to show due diligence; may need affidavit before trial)
- State v. Dixon, 259 N.C. 249, 130 S.E.2d 333 (1963) (no new discovery where the defendant knew of witness before or during trial)
- State v. Wheeler, 249 N.C. 187, 105 S.E.2d 615 (1958) (appellate review of trial court findings; respect to findings if supported by evidence)
- State v. Wiggins, 334 N.C. 18, 431 S.E.2d 755 (1993) (due diligence requirement for newly discovered evidence; de novo review of legal conclusions)
