State v. Spell
399 So. 2d 551 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion for a new trial based on a key witness's recantation of trial testimony, particularly when that recantation is later repudiated by the witness at the new trial hearing.
Facts:
- On November 12, 1975, Thomas Rhuel Spell asked Anthony Broussard for a ride, and they subsequently picked up Ricky Mire.
- At Spell's direction, Broussard drove to an isolated area near a drainage canal.
- Spell took the car keys, opened the trunk, and removed a tire tool.
- Spell and Mire then walked away from the car together toward the drainage ditch, with Spell carrying the tire tool.
- Approximately ten minutes later, Spell returned to the car alone, without Mire, and Broussard heard what sounded like the tire tool being dropped on the car floor.
- Spell instructed Broussard not to ask any questions, and the tire tool was not in Broussard's vehicle after Spell departed.
- About an hour later, Mire was found unconscious in the drainage ditch with severe, bloody head injuries from which he later died.
- While imprisoned, Spell confessed to a fellow inmate, Ronald Jenkins, that he had killed Mire to prevent him from disclosing their homosexual relationship to Spell's wife.
Procedural Posture:
- Thomas Rhuel Spell was charged by a grand jury indictment with second-degree murder.
- Spell was convicted in a bench trial but was granted a motion for a new trial.
- In a subsequent jury trial, Spell was convicted of second-degree murder by an eleven-to-one vote.
- The trial court sentenced Spell to life imprisonment.
- Spell, the appellant, appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
- While the appeal was pending, Spell filed a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
- The Supreme Court of Louisiana remanded the case to the trial court to conduct a hearing on the motion for a new trial.
- After the hearing, the trial court denied Spell's motion for a new trial.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a new trial when the motion is based on the recanted testimony of a key witness, who subsequently repudiates that recantation at the new trial hearing?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Jasper E. Jones (Ad Hoc)
No. A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial based on a witness's recanted testimony, as such recantations must be viewed with the utmost suspicion. The court reasoned that the trial judge is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of the recanting witness and the potential impact of the new evidence. Here, the witness, Ronald Jenkins, not only recanted his trial testimony but then repudiated that recantation at the new trial hearing, explaining he had been paid to change his story. This reaffirmation of his original testimony, combined with the substantial circumstantial evidence provided by witness Anthony Broussard, gave the trial judge a sound basis to conclude that the new evidence would not have changed the verdict. Therefore, there was no clear showing of an abuse of discretion.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant deference appellate courts give to trial courts in ruling on motions for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. It establishes that the recantation of a witness's testimony is inherently suspect and is not, by itself, sufficient grounds to overturn a conviction. By emphasizing the trial judge's role in assessing credibility, the case makes it exceedingly difficult for defendants to succeed on such motions, particularly when the recanting witness later retracts their recantation. This holding protects the finality of verdicts from post-trial manipulations and underscores the high burden a defendant must meet to prove that new evidence would have probably led to an acquittal.
