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

Here, the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion. Defendant was afforded a reasonable timeover two monthsto prepare his new trial motion. (See People v. Alexander, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 934.) Defendant made no showing that he had exercised diligence to secure the victim's attendance; he made no showing that the victim would testify within a reasonable time; or most significantly that the victim would provide material evidence. When asked what evidence the victim would provide, defendant responded that he did not know. The court continued sentencing for over two months, and defendant still had not produced any evidence that the victim would testify favorably to him. Under these circumstances, defendant failed to demonstrate good cause for an additional continuance. The trial court properly denied his request.

Even if the court abused its discretion in denying defendant an additional continuance, he demonstrated no prejudice. The record contains no exculpatory evidence from the alleged victim. The trial court had granted defendant numerous continuances, and he failed to obtain any exculpatory evidence. Even if defendant had obtained exculpatory evidence, he fails to demonstrate a new trial would have been warranted. A new trial motion based on newly discovered evidence requires a showing that the evidence could not with reasonable diligence have been produced at trial and that a different result is probable upon retrial. (People v. Cua (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 582, 608.) The record does not support either element.