mask prior to the robbery. As the State points out, however, the court, in denying the motion for a new trial, relied on the fact that Kelly’s counsel was fully aware that defendant had worn the mask on at least one occasion prior to the time of the robbery. On a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, the defen dant must show, by convincing evidence, the following: “(1) That the evidence is such as will probably change the result if a new trial is granted; (2) that it has been discovered since the trial; (3) that it could not have been discovered before trial by the exercise o ) (same); State v. Gardiner, 636 A.2d 710, 714 (R.I.1994) (same); State v. Cotton, 99 N.C.App. 615, 394 S.E.2d 456, 460 (1990) (same); Dewberry v. State, 743 S.W.2d 260, 268 (Tex.Ct.App.1987) (<HOLDING>), rev’d on other grounds, 776 S.W.2d 589
holding that it was an abuse of discretion to deny stay while matter was pending in neighboring state holding no abuse of discretion to deny  a third chance to offer more details holding not an abuse of discretion to deny funds holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to deny an award of attorneys fees to the wife