What is the test for a motion to obtain a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence?

2 Witkin observes that "[i]t is frequently declared that the motion on this ground [newly discovered evidence] is viewed with 'disfavor' and even 'distrust' and 'suspicion.' [Citing cases.] [p] This disparagement is questionable; fair consideration of competent new evidence tending to negative guilt is essential to any enlightened system of criminal justice. And the disfavor notion seems merely to be an unfortunate way of describing the necessary broad discretion in the trial judge to deny the motion where no sufficient showing is made of competency, materiality and diligence." (Cal.Criminal Procedure (1963) pp. 568-569; see People v. Clauson (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 699, 703-704, 80 Cal.Rptr. 475.)

3 In People v. Redmond (1969) 71 Cal.2d 745, 79 Cal.Rptr. 529, 457 P.2d 321, a defendant was convicted of burglary on the basis of fingerprints found near the bedroom window where the burglar had broken into the house. In holding that the trial court should have granted a new trial on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence, we said: "The fingerprint evidence cannot be considered substantially incriminating in the circumstances of the present case. The evidence is clear that defendant was in the house lawfully for a substantial period of time on the evening preceding the crime. The prosecution evidence places him there for three quarters of an hour. That evidence does not show where the conversations took place. Entirely consistent with the prosecution case the entire conversation could have occurred in the bedroom, and, if so, the presence of the fingerprint was not substantially incriminating.... Nor can the placement of the fingerprint on the sill be viewed as a substantially incriminating factor. There is nothing in the record to show that the fingerprint was in a place where a visitor to the house would not have left it." (Pp. 756-757, 79 Cal.Rptr. 529, 457 P.2d 321.)