The standard of review for the denial of a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence is abuse of discretion. See Lewis v. State, 911 S.W.2d 1, 7 (Tex. Crim. App.1995); State v. Gonzalez, 855 S.W.2d 692, 696 (Tex. Crim. App.1993). Motions for new trial based on newly discovered evidence are not favored by the courts and are viewed with great caution. See Drew v. State, 743 S.W.2d 207, 225-26 (Tex. Crim. App.1987). We do not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court, but rather decide whether the trial court's decision was arbitrary or unreasonable. Id. In order to prevail on a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, "the movant must show that the evidence was: (1) unknown before trial; (2) not discoverable before trial; (3) probably true and material; (4) competent, and not merely cumulative, corroborative, collateral, or impeaching." Dickerson v. State, 745 S.W.2d 401 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, pet. ref'd).