Moore v. Adams, 273 Or 576, 579, 542 P2d 490 (1975). However, “[w]hen the trial court’s order of a new trial is based on an interpretation of the law, we review that order for errors of law.” Bennett v. Farmers Ins. Co., 332 Or 138, 151, 26 P3d 785 (2001). See also State v. Sundberg, 349 Or 608, 624, 247 P3d 1213 (2011) (same). As noted, the trial court in this case concluded that defendants’ purported newly discovered evidence did not authorize a new trial under the applicable legal standard. The Court of Appeals concluded that, in making that determination, the trial court did not correctly apply that legal standard. Accordingly, we review the conclusions of the trial court and the Court of Appeals for legal error. Cf. State v. Arnold, 320 Or 111, 122, 879 P2d 1272 (1994) (<HOLDING>). B. Newly Discovered Evidence The threshold
holding that posttrial discovery of asserted newly discovered evidence did not satisfy the requirement that the evidence must be such as with reasonable diligence could not have been discovered and produced at trial holding that the defendants evidence did not qualify as newly discovered evidence holding that to justify a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence 1 the evidence must have been discovered after trial 2 the failure to discover this evidence must not be attributable to a lack of due diligence on the part of the movant 3 the evidence must not be merely cumulative or impeaching 4 the evidence must be material and 5 the evidence must be likely to produce an acquittal if a new trial is granted holding that affidavit from a new witness was not newly discovered evidence because trial counsel knew of the existence of the witness before trial trial counsel with due diligence could have discovered the evidence holding that in order to qualify as newly discovered evidence the evidence must have been in existence and hidden at the time of judgment