The "Act provides a three-stage process for adjudication of postconviction petitions [citation]." People v. Carter, 2013 IL App (2d) 110703, ¶ 74."If the petitioner makes the requisite substantial showing that his constitutional rights were violated, he is entitled to a third stage evidentiary hearing. [Citation.] At such a hearing, the circuit court serves as the fact finder, and, therefore, it is the court's function to determine witness credibility, decide the weight to be given testimony and evidence, and resolve any evidentiary conflicts."

There is no way to evaluate and adjudicate the relative merits of this evidence without making a credibility determination that would be inappropriate at the second stage of proceedings. People v. Carter, 2013 IL App (2d) 110703, ¶ 74.

¶ 35 Although McDonald did not testify at the original trial, his testimony at the evidentiary hearing was similar to a recantation. See People v. Carter, 2013 IL App (2d) 110703, ¶ 87. The recantation of testimony is regarded as inherently unreliable and, as a result, courts will not grant a new trial on the basis of a recantation except in extraordinary circumstances.

defendant's claim of actual innocence, the ultimate purpose of which was to determine whether the new evidence was of such conclusive character that it would probably change the result on retrial (Robinson, 2020 IL 123849, ¶¶ 47-48; People v. Carter, 2013 IL App (2d) 110703, ¶ 77). To make this determination, the trial court was required to assess the credibility of Faison and other witnesses.

The court was entitled to make such an assessment when evaluating the evidence presented, and we find no abuse of its discretion. See People v. Carter, 2013 IL App (2d) 110703, ¶ 77, 994 N.E.2d 224 (stating that to determine whether new evidence was of such conclusive character that it would change the result on retrial, a trial court is required to assess witness credibility). ¶ 88 III. CONCLUSION

Newly discovered evidence warrants retrial only when it is (1) discovered since trial and of such a nature that the defendant exercising due diligence could not have discovered it earlier, (2) material and not merely cumulative, and (3) so conclusive that it will probably change the result on retrial. People v. Carter, 2013 IL App (2d) 110703, ¶ 75. Evidence is cumulative when it adds nothing to what was already presented to the trier of fact at trial.

New evidence need not necessarily establish the defendant's innocence." People v. Carter, 2013 IL App (2d) 110703, ¶ 75 (citing People v. Gonzalez, 407 Ill. App. 3d 1026, 1034 (2011)). "Instead, a new trial is warranted if all of the facts and surrounding circumstances, including the new evidence, warrant closer scrutiny to determine the guilt of innocence of the defendant.

Newly discovered evidence warrants retrial only when it is (1) discovered since trial and of such a nature that the defendant exercising due diligence could not have discovered it earlier, (2) material and not merely cumulative, and (3) so conclusive that it will probably change the result on retrial. People v. Carter, 2013 IL App (2d) 110703, ¶ 75. Evidence is cumulative when it adds nothing to what was already presented to the trier of fact at trial.

In this case, defendant's postconviction petition reached the third stage, and the trial court was called upon to determine witness credibility, decide the weight to be given testimony and evidence, and resolve any evidentiary conflicts. People v. Carter, 2013 IL App (2d) 110703, ¶ 74, 373 Ill.Dec. 739, 994 N.E.2d 224. The trial court's decision following the third-stage evidentiary hearing will not be reversed on review unless it is manifestly erroneous. Id.

People v. Nathaniel A. CarterLower Court: 2013 IL App (2d) 110703, 373 Ill.Dec. 739, 994 N.E.2d 224 Disposition: Denied.