Successive motion threshold for new evidence; MCR 6.502(G)(2)(b); People v Lemons; Newly discovered evidence new-trial standard; MCR 6.508(D)(3); People v Cress; Credibility of recantation & new evidence; MCR 6.508(C); People v Johnson; Required findings on ineffective assistance claim; MCR 6.508(E); People v White

The court held that the trial court applied an incorrect legal framework when it “erroneously conflated” MCR 6.502(G)(2)’s gatekeeping requirement with the Cress test and MCR 6.508(D), so denial of defendant’s second motion for relief from judgment had to be vacated. He was convicted of second-degree murder and firearm offenses arising from a shooting, and he previously filed a motion for relief from judgment. On appeal, the court held that to clear the successive-motion threshold for a new-evidence claim, defendant need only show evidence “was not discovered before” filing the first motion, and Cress “does not apply to the procedural threshold of MCR 6.502(G)(2).” The court next found defendant met that threshold because the supporting materials, including subsequent affidavits were not in existence when the motion for relief from judgment was filed, and nothing showed he otherwise discovered their substance earlier, noting much of the evidence “did not yet exist at that time.” The court also instructed that on remand, credibility and prejudice analysis must ask whether “a reasonable juror could find the testimony credible on retrial,” and then evaluate it alongside evidence that would be admitted at a new trial. The court further held that the trial court erred by not addressing the ineffective-assistance claim, emphasizing it “shall set forth in the record its findings of fact and its conclusions of law.” Vacated and remanded.