Opinion ID: 2086160
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: New Trial, on Newly Discovered Evidence

Text: A slip of paper (State's Exhibit # 1) allegedly bearing the notations which recorded the illegal bet bore the name Smiley as identification of the bettor. No one was identified as Smiley at trial. Appellant denied placing a bet on the day in question, writing upon any pad of paper or a slip or that he was known as Smiley. In cross-examination, Officer A was asked if he knew or had ever heard of one by the name of Smiley Russell. The answer was negative. Later, if he had ever heard the name Smiley Russell or Rexton B. Russell, Jr., and the officer replied that he had heard the name Rex Russell, that he had seen the name Rex Russell on pieces of paper, but that he did not know Smiley Russell and Rexton B. Russell as the same person. Officer B testified that in the slips seized covering dates in June, July and August, the name Smiley appeared a number of times. The officer testified that because of his observations on October 18th he concluded that the appellant was Smiley. This officer also had observed the name of Rex Russell during his investigation, but that he never ascertained that Smiley and Rex Russell were one and the same. This was the status of the record relative Smiley at trial. (February 12, 1968). Subsequently the motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence was filed July 10, 1968 and heard December 5, 1969. Upon this occasion one R____ was presented, who testified that he frequented the Bar at which the bet was recorded, did place a bet on October 18th, that he paid $2.00 to the proprietor but that the proprietor did the writing, that he is Smiley, that he knows the appellant, that the appellant was not in the Bar, October 18th while he, R____, was there, that he, R____, was arrested in the Bar shortly after he placed the bet, and that he was prosecuted in the District Court, appealed and never heard any more since. M____, the proprietor of the Bar, testified that he knew Smiley R____, whose real name was James R____, that Smiley was in the Bar on the day of the raid, and placed a bet, which he, M____, recorded on the slip identified at trial as State's Exhibit # 1. M____ testified that he was arrested on that date and since convicted of this so-called bookmaking. Appellant urges that because both R____ and M____ were under prosecution at the same time as he was, they could not be expected or required to testify on his behalf, and represents that the identity of Smiley was not determined until after his (appellant's) trial. In the interests of finality, motions based upon newly discovered evidence are not favored by the Courts. Proof must be convincing.   . Harrison, Pro Ami v. Wells, 151 Me. 75, 81, 116 A.2d 134, 137. The tests to be applied to this motion were last recited in a criminal case in State v. Casale, 148 Me. 312, 319, 92 A.2d 718; Id., 150 Me. 310, 311, 110 A.2d 588 and need not be repeated. The conclusion is irresistible that appellant and the man who later identifies himself as Smiley R____ and M____ were arrested at the Bar on October 18, 1967. The indictment against appellant was found and filed on January 23, 1968. There was no indictment returned against R____. Appellant's case came to jury trial on February 12, 1968. Due diligence during that interim would have disclosed that R____ was known as Smiley. True, that until the prosecution of R____ was terminated, he could not be compelled to testify for appellant, but R____ was not under indictment at time of appellant's trial and representations to the trial Court as to the unavailability of M____ would have been appropriately a basis for requesting a continuance, as was done in Atkins v. Field, 89 Me. 281, 289, 36 A. 375. See also Rodrigue, supra, 158 Me. at p. 378, 184 A.2d 777. It cannot be contended successfully that either R____ or M____ was newly discovered within the rule. What of the required probability that a different result would be reached upon a new trial? The meaning of probability as used in the rule was fixed in State v. Stain, et al., 82 Me. 472, 490-491, 20 A. 72, 77, where it was said: If, with the newly-discovered evidence before them, the jury ought not to come to the same conclusion, then a new trial may be granted; otherwise they are bound to refuse the application.    The question, therefore, is (supposing all the testimony, new and old, before another jury) not whether they might, but whether they ought to give another verdict. State v. Irons, 137 Me. 294, 299, 18 A.2d 798, 801, states: It is not sufficient that there may be a possibility or chance of a different result, or that a jury might be induced to give a different verdict; there must be a probability that the verdict would be different upon a new trial. (U)pon these considerations the question before the appellate court is, was the action of the Justice below    clearly wrong. State v. Dodge, 124 Me. 243, 250, 127 A. 899, 903. In connection with the slip of paper (State's Exhibit # 1) which was offered in proof of the illegal wager and which, the State claimed, was in the handwriting of the appellant, the appellant at trial submitted samples of his handwriting. The jury had the slip and the handwriting specimens before it. These exhibits which were before the jury and the trial Judge who considered the motion based upon alleged newly discovered evidence, were not made a part of the record. It cannot be said that the denial of a new trial by the Justice below was clearly wrong. Appeal denied.