Woods v. State

MAXWELL, J.,

for the Court:

¶ 1. “The fact that a witness changes his testimony after the trial does not necessarily entitle the [post-conviction-relief (PCR) ] petitioner to a new trial.”1 It does, however, entitle him to an evidentia-ry hearing. After this hearing, if the trial judge “is not satisfied that such [changed] testimony is true,” then it is his “right and duty ... to deny a new trial.”2

¶ 2. Arthur Woods was granted an evi-dentiary hearing on his successive PCR motion because the statutory-rape victim filled out an affidavit in which she recanted her trial testimony. But at this…