What is the standard of review for reviewing a motion where new evidence has been discovered during a trial?

It is also fitting to adopt an abuse-of-discretion standard, as is used to review new trial motion rulings based on newly discovered evidence. (People v. McDaniel, supra, 16 Cal.3d 156, 179, 127 Cal.Rptr. 467, 545 P.2d 843.) Here, as there, "the trial court [14 Cal.App.4th 213] is in the best position to determine the genuineness and effectiveness of the showing in support of the motion [citation]." (People v. Minnick (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1478, 1481, 263 Cal.Rptr. 316.) That is especially so where the new evidence and its effect on a prior finding involve the credibility of a key witness. (Cf. id., at p. 1482, 263 Cal.Rptr. 316.) While a reviewing court defers to the superior court judge's assessment regardless of whether the new evidence is presented live or by affidavit (People v. Gaines (1962) 204 Cal.App.2d 624, 629, 22 Cal.Rptr. 556), added deference seems in order where the judge has heard the witnesses testify live. The judge's perspective in that case cannot be replicated on appeal.