affidavit is not the affidavit of the witness with personal knowledge of the events described in the affidavit; rather, it is the hearsay testimony of Williams’s trial counsel about a witness who is Williams’s brother and was presumably available to execute an affidavit based upon personal knowledge, not hearsay. At best, this hearsay “evidence” referenced in trial counsel’s affidavit might be useful for impeaching the defense’s own witness (which carries with it a host of other issues), but it is clearly not substantive evidence warranting a new trial. State v. Westcott, 857 S.W.2d 393, 398 (Mo.App.W.D.1993) (“[Af-fiant’s] testimony is hearsay, useful perhaps for impeach[ment] ..., but not as substantive evidence.”). See also State v. Gatewood, 965 S.W.2d 852, 859 (Mo.App.W.D.1998) (<HOLDING>). Second, the affidavit does not indicate that
holding that an order granting a new trial in a civil action is appealable holding impeachment evidence falls within the brady rule holding that superior court erred in reversing trial courts order granting new trial and remanding for a new trial limited to apportionment of damages holding evidence insufficient to support finding of implied contract holding an affidavit containing impeachment evidence is insufficient to support the granting of a new trial