Bobo, 820 N.W.2d at 516 (describing an evidentiary hearing as “the means for evaluating the credibility of a witness” (emphasis added)). Moreover, even if the dissent’s strict definition of what constitutes a “recanta tion” were correct, the Larrison standard applies broadly to all allegations of false trial testimony, not just to witness recantations, Pippitt, 737 N.W.2d at 227, so the dissent’s metaphysical discussion of recantations is ultimately beside the point. Thus, no matter how we label Caldwell’s allegations-as allegedly false testimony or as recantations — the Larrison standard requires us to examine the substance of the witnesses’ statements, rather than how the witnesses characterize their statements, to determine whether they may have testified falsely at trial. See id. (<HOLDING>). It is the substance of the conflicting
holding that an ontherecord evidentiary hearing is necessary when the trial court is asked to rule in limine that a witness cannot be asked questions to show that he is biased prejudiced interested in the outcome of the proceeding or has a motive to testify falsely holding that attorneys testimony was not relevant to any issues contained in the appellants pleadings and that the appellant had failed to demonstrate that the attorneys testimony could not be gained from any other witness or source holding that defendants waived any challenge to the trial courts failure to hold an evidentiary hearing holding that not only the employees testimony at the grievance hearing but also the affidavit that he filed and his agreement to be listed as a potential witness were entitled to protection holding following an evidentiary hearing that the first larrison prong was not satisfied when a witness claimed that he had testified falsely at trial but failed to provide any details or otherwise demonstrate which parts of his testimony were false