Newly discovered evidence; People v Cress; Credibility assessment; People v Johnson; Successive motion based on new evidence; MCR 6.502(G)(2)(b); Abuse of discretion review; People v Owens

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for relief from judgment because, even if the newly offered eyewitness account was not patently incredible, it did not make a different result reasonably probable when weighed against the evidence that would be presented on retrial. Defendant was convicted in 1985 of first-degree murder for a 1984 shooting during a vehicle chase. Decades later he sought relief from judgment based on an affidavit and evidentiary-hearing testimony from a witness who claimed he was in the victim’s car and identified a different shooter. The trial court found the first three Cress factors satisfied but denied relief on the fourth factor, concluding the new testimony would not probably produce a different result at retrial given the overall trial evidence and the circumstances surrounding the witness’s late disclosure. On appeal, the court held that under Cress and Johnson, the trial court could consider credibility and then evaluate the new testimony “‘in conjunction with the evidence that would be presented on retrial[.]’” It concluded the record supported the trial court’s finding that the prosecution’s case was not “‘shaky’” enough for the new account to likely change the outcome. The court emphasized that the key trial witness had a substantial basis to identify defendant and his car, including years of familiarity, contemporaneous statements to police that led officers to defendant’s street and vehicle, corroboration from another witness who observed a chase involving a car matching defendant’s, evidence of defendant’s prior dispute with the victim and prior attempts to harm him, and defendant’s flight when police tried to apprehend him shortly after the shooting. The court also noted the new witness’s account conflicted with trial evidence on the chase vehicle and who fled the crash scene, further diminishing its force at retrial. Affirmed.