Linda L. Knowles v. Kelli Cassidy

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2021-0584, Linda L. Knowles v. Kelli Cassidy,
the court on June 20, 2022, issued the following order:

Having considered the brief of the plaintiff, Linda L. Knowles, and the
record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in
this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). The plaintiff appeals an order of the Superior
Court (St. Hilaire, J.) denying her motion for a new trial. See RSA 526:1 (2021).
We affirm.

RSA 526:1 provides: “A new trial may be granted in any case when through
accident, mistake or misfortune justice has not been done and a further hearing
would be equitable.” “Whether accident, mistake, or misfortune occurred is
determined by the trier of fact, and its finding will be conclusive unless it is
unsupported by the evidence.” In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154
N.H. 51, 56 (2006). We will not disturb the trial court’s ruling absent an
unsustainable exercise of discretion. See id.

Newly-discovered evidence may justify the granting of a new trial under
RSA 526:1. State v. Etienne, 163 N.H. 57, 96 (2011). To obtain a new trial based
upon newly-discovered evidence, the moving party generally must establish that:
(1) the moving party was not at fault for not discovering the evidence at the prior
trial; (2) the evidence is admissible, material to the merits of the case, and not
cumulative; and (3) the evidence is of such a character that a different result will
probably be reached in a new trial. Rautenberg v. Munnis, 109 N.H. 25, 26
(1968). We have recognized a “single exception” to the requirement that the
moving party establish the likelihood of a different result. Barton v. Plaisted, 109
N.H. 428, 432 (1969). Under this exception, when a party testifies falsely and the
false testimony was dishonest and concerned a material issue, “the verdict will be
set aside even if it is not found that a new trial will probably produce a different
result.” Id. (quotation omitted).

Whether newly-discovered evidence requires a new trial is a question of
fact for the trial court. State v. Breest, 169 N.H. 640, 653 (2017). “We will
sustain the trial court’s decision unless its conclusion is clearly unreasonable.”
Id.; see Rautenberg, 109 N.H. at 26 (“The issue presented by [a] motion [for a new
trial based upon newly-discovered evidence] is one of fact for the Trial Court, and
its decision is binding in this court unless it can be said to conclusively appear
that a different result is probable, so that the Trial Court’s conclusion is clearly
unreasonable.”).
 As the appealing party, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating
reversible error. Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014). Based upon our
review of the trial court’s order, the plaintiff’s challenges to it, the relevant law,
and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that she has not demonstrated
reversible error. See id. To the extent that the plaintiff argues that the trial judge
was biased, she has established neither that a reasonable person would have
questioned the trial court’s impartiality, nor any factors that would have per se
disqualified the trial judge. See State v. Bader, 148 N.H. 265, 268-71 (2002).
The mere fact that the trial judge ruled adversely to the plaintiff does not
establish that the trial judge was biased. See id. at 271.

Affirmed.

MacDonald, C.J., and Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ.,
concurred.

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

2