180 N.J. at 196, 850 A.2d 440 ; see also State v. Fortin, 464 N.J. Super. 193, 234 A.3d 372 (App. Div. 2020) (holding that, with a single exception, the various scientific reports proffered to challenge the reliability of bitemark analysis did not constitute newly discovered evidence for purposes of a motion for a new trial because scientific studies questioning the reliability of bitemark analysis existed at time of trial), certif. denied, 246 N.J. 50, 248 A.3d 384 (2021). C.
The defendant bears the burden of establishing each prong. See State v. Fortin, 464 N.J.Super. 193, 216 (App. Div. 2020), certif. denied, 246 N.J. 50 (2021); see also State v. Smith, 29 N.J. 561, 573 (1959).
"We review a motion for a new trial decision for an abuse of discretion." State v. Fortin, 464 N.J.Super. 193, 216 (App. Div. 2020), certif. denied, 246 N.J. 50 (2021) (citing State v. Armour, 446 N.J.Super. 295, 306 (App. Div. 2016)).
"We review a motion for a new trial decision for an abuse of discretion." State v. Fortin, 464 N.J.Super. 193, 216 (App. Div. 2020), certif. denied, 246 N.J. 50 (2021) (citing State v. Armour, 446 N.J.Super. 295, 306 (App. Div. 2016)).
We review a motion for a new trial decision for an abuse of discretion. State v. Fortin, 464 N.J.Super. 193, 216 (App. Div. 2020), certif. denied, 246 N.J. 50 (2021), and recons. denied, 249 N.J. 60 (2021).
State v. Fortin, 464 N.J.Super. 193, 216 (App. Div. 2020), cert. denied, 246 N.J. 50 (2021), and we discern none here. The officer's obstruction of justice conviction occurred several years after defendant's trial; the crime had nothing to do with the detective's police work in defendant's case; and the detective did not testify.