Lash (Christopher) v. State

NRS 48.045(2). The specific evidence at issue, however, did not exist at the time of Lash's trial and therefore cannot form the basis for a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. See State v. Bass,

4 So. 3d 353, 357-58

(Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (explaining that "newly discovered evidence must have been facts that existed at the time of trial," but "which could not have been discovered by the exercise of due diligence at the time of trial" (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). We conclude that the district court reached the right result, albeit for the wrong reason.…