Opinion ID: 2086160
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: New Trial, on Motion

Text: The motion for a new trial addressed to the presiding Justice was founded upon alleged errors by the Court in several categories but only one category is briefed, that having to do with the exclusion of testimony which appellant sought by three questions in cross-examination of prosecuting witnesses. For the exclusion of testimony to be a ground for relief, the proffered testimony must be material and its exclusion prejudicial, as to both of which elements appellant has the burden. It is not enough to show that a technically admissible question was excluded, but he (exceptant, appellant) must go farther and show affirmatively that he was prejudiced by such exclusion. It must appear    in the record that the answer would have been in the respondent's favor, otherwise no harm could have been done. State v. Dow, 122 Me. 448, 449, 120 A. 427, 428. No purpose is served in detailed discussion of the State's evidence which was the basis for the excluded questions. In no instance does it appear by offer of proof that the answers anticipated would have been favorable to the appellant, and the exclusion therefore prejudicial. See Rodrigue et al. v. Letendre et al., 158 Me. 375, 377, 184 A.2d 777. The first question included a false premise and both the first and second questions were subsequently asked in substantially the same terms and without objection were answered. The third question was premised upon the contention that the testimony of the two under-cover officers was inconsistent upon a circumstantial fact, which alleged inconsistency is not supported by the record. The denial of the motion was not error.