Opinion ID: 2061712
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Motion for New Trial on Grounds of Newly Discovered Evidence

Text: The only issue raised by this motion is whether the Justice was correct in denying the motion. The Defendant offered the testimony of a witness who testified that he had been in the York County Jail during a part of the time that Mr. Therrien was also in custody. This witness talked with Mr. Therrien about the Goldman case on several occasions while in the jail and quotes Mr. Therrien as saying, He [Goldman] didn't have anything to do with it. This witness knew the Defendant's daughters and at some time subsequent to the trial he reported this conversation to one of them, with the result that it came to the attention of Mr. Goldman's attorney who interviewed him and obtained a statement from him. The Justice who heard the motion was the same Justice who presided at the Defendant's trial. In his ruling on the motion he conceded that the evidence was newly discovered, that it was not discoverable in the exercise of reasonable diligence before the trial. He considered it to be impeaching in character, of doubtful credibility, and wholly conclusory in nature. That this testimony would have produced a different verdict was, in the mind of the Justice, incredible and he concluded that no useful purpose would be served by granting the motion and allowing another jury to hear the testimony. The rule in Maine is well settled that a motion for a new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence will not be granted on evidence that is merely cumulative or impeaching unless it is clear that such impeachment would have resulted in a different verdict. Brine v. State, (Me. 1970) 264 A.2d 530. See also State v. Casale, (1952) 148 Me. 312, 92 A.2d 718. We agree with the conclusions of the Justice below and find no error in his ruling. The decree is Appeals denied.