Task: songer_othadmis

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. The issue is: "Did the court rule that some evidence, other than a confession made by the defendant or illegal search and seizure, was inadmissibile, (or did ruling on appropriateness of evidentary hearing benefit the defendant)?" Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed". If the court answered the question in the affirmative, but the error articulated by the court was judged to be harmless, answer "Yes, but error was harmless". 

PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellant was found guilty by a jury of forging an indorsement on a United States Treasury check in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 495 and was sentenced to a prison term of five years. His defense was that he had a note signed by the payee of the cheek giving him permission to cash it. The payee testified that he had not given any such permission and had not signed such a note. The note of authorization was not introduced in evidence- during the trial.
Ten days after he was sentenced, defendant filed a motion for a new trial on grounds of newly discovered evidence, claiming that his wife had found the handwritten note which gave him permission to cash the check.
At defendant’s request the district court appointed a handwriting expert at the expense of the Government to determine, if possible, whether either defendant or his wife was the author of the note. The theory of the district court was that if neither defendant nor his wife had written the note, presentation of such a note at the trial could have affected the outcome and the defendant would be entitled to a new trial. The handwriting expert rendered an opinion to the effect that the note in question was written by defendant and not by the payee of the check. The district court thereupon denied the motion for a new trial and defendant has appealed.
In this court defendant relies upon Rule 33, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which authorizes the district court to grant a new trial to a defendant “if required in the interest of justice,” contending that he should be granted a new trial and that the jury should be permitted to determine the authenticity of the note of authorization.
The granting or refusing of a new trial upon grounds of newly discovered evidence rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. A new trial will not be granted unless such evidence probably would bring about a different result. United States v. Lewis, 338 F.2d 137 (C.A. 6), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 978, 85 S.Ct. 1342, 14 L.Ed.2d 272, and cases therein cited.
We hold that the district judge did not abuse his discretion, in concluding that the introduction of the note and the testimony of the handwriting expert probably would not bring about a different result in this case.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Appreciation is expressed to Mr. Kent J. Vana of the bar of Grand Rapids, Michigan, for his services as court-appointed counsel for defendant both in this court and in the district court.

Question: Did the court rule that some evidence, other than a confession made by the defendant or illegal search and seizure, was inadmissibile (or did ruling on appropriateness of evidentary hearing benefit the defendant)?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Yes, but error was harmless
D. Mixed answer
E. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: A