Summary
The Texas Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Robert Schrade’s motion for a new trial without an evidentiary hearing. The court held that Schrade’s allegations regarding allegedly perjured testimony did not establish newly discovered evidence because the evidence could have been obtained before trial, and the supporting affidavit showed only a dispute over the interpretation of discography films.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing on Schrade's motion for new trial based on his allegation that Earle gave perjured testimony.
- Whether the facts alleged in the motion and supporting affidavit, if true, would entitle Schrade to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
Holdings
- A trial court is required to conduct an evidentiary hearing on a motion for new trial only when the motion alleges facts that, if true, would entitle the movant to a new trial.
- A movant seeking a new trial based on newly discovered evidence must show that the evidence was discovered after trial, was not obtainable earlier through due diligence, is not cumulative, and is sufficiently material that it would probably produce a different result.
- An expert's disagreement with a witness's interpretation of medical imaging does not establish perjury or otherwise excuse compliance with the requirements for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
Key quotations
“A trial court is required to conduct a hearing on a motion for new trial only if the motion “alleges facts, which if true, would entitle the movant to a new trial.”” (at -2)
“Evidence that Schrade’s expert disagreed with Earle in interpreting the discography film does not establish perjury.” (at -4)
Factual background
Schrade alleged that Earle negligently performed unnecessary surgery on his neck at the C4-C5 level. Earle testified that an intraoperative discography showed dye injected at and leaking from the C4-C5 disc, while the radiologist's report described contrast leakage at C3-C4 but did not report injection or leakage at C4-C5. The trial court admitted the radiologist's report but excluded the discography film because it had not been produced during discovery. Schrade attached an expert affidavit to his motion for new trial asserting that the film showed no injected dye at C4-C5 or C5-C6 and argued that Earle had committed perjury.
Procedural history
Schrade sued Earle and Earle's professional association for negligence, alleging that Earle performed unnecessary surgery at the C4-C5 level. During trial, the court excluded discography film because it had not been produced in discovery, and the trial court later denied Schrade's motion for new trial without conducting the requested evidentiary hearing. The Court of Appeals affirmed.