What is the test for a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence?

Section 1181, subdivision 8, permits one convicted of a crime to move for a new trial "[w]hen new evidence is discovered material to the defendant, and which he [or she] could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the trial." (People v. Delgado (1993) 5 Cal.4th 312, 328, fn. 6.)

" ' "The determination of a motion for a new trial rests so completely within the court's discretion that its action will not be disturbed unless a manifest and unmistakable abuse of discretion clearly appears." ' [Citations.] ' "[I]n determining whether there has been a proper exercise of discretion on such motion, each case must be judged from its own factual background." ' [Citation.] [] In ruling on a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, the trial court considers the following factors: ' "1. That the evidence, and not merely its materiality, be newly discovered; 2. That the evidence be not cumulative merely; 3. That it be such as to render a different result probable on a retrial of the cause; 4. That the party could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced it at the trial; and 5. That these facts be shown by the best evidence of which the case admits." ' [Citations.]" (People v. Delgado, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 328.) "In addition, 'the trial court may consider the credibility as well as materiality of the evidence in its determination [of] whether introduction of the evidence in a new trial would render a different result reasonably probable.' [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 329.)

"The fact that an important prosecution witness has recanted does not necessarily compel the granting of the motion. In such a case the trial judge is required to weigh the evidence offered in support of the motion, and he [or she] may reject it if he [or she] deems it unworthy of belief. [Citations.]" (People v. Langlois (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d

Page 10