Court Opinion

ID: 9672983
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:03:53.252598+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:19.559305
License: Public Domain

T. E. Brennan, C. J.
(dissenting). I must disagree with the remand of this case for an evidentiary hearing on defendant’s application for leave to file a delayed motion for new trial.
I quote pertinent textbook law. 39 Am Jur, New Trial, §§ 156, 162, 164, pp 163 and 169-171, and authorities cited therein.
“In order to prevent, as far as possible, the fraud and imposition which defeated parties may be tempted to practice as a last resort to escape the consequence of an adverse verdict, an application setting up the discovery of new evidence should always be subjected to the closest scrutiny by the court.” (section 156, p 163.)
“Affidavits in support of an application for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence are required to set forth facts in order that the court may determine the question whether the testimony, if introduced at another trial, could have any legal effect on the result of the controversy. * * *
“An affidavit must be filed by the applicant, * * # accompanied by affidavits of the new witnesses, setting forth the newly discovered evidence and the facts to which the witnesses will testify.” (section 162, pp 169, 170.)
*514“The courts will refuse to grant the application where the supporting affidavits show that the new evidence consists of hearsay.” (section 164, p 171.)
The only affidavit in support of defendant’s motion here is as follows:
“ T, Charley Page Blackwell, being duly sound of mind do hereby swear on my honor that the following statement is true to the best of my knowledge. On Monday, August 10,1964,1 was taken from Jackson prison to the Detroit Wayne county jail to be interrogated. I was questioned by Detective Shoemaker of the Detroit police hold-up squad, and in the process of being questioned 1 admitted certain crimes that I have never been apprehended for, including an armed robbery of a Detroit, Michigan bar on Michigan avenue near 28th street which goes under the name of Paul’s Bar on October 3d, 1963 at approximately 10:30 p.m. Detective Shoemaker did tell me that I would not be prosecuted any further because of this time I am serving a sentence of 4 to 10 years in Jackson prison. I would be willing to testify to this statement in court that being true and correct.’ ”
The affidavit is hearsay.
It does not contain an admission of the crime. It merely shows that an extrajudicial admission was made by Blackwell on August 10, 1964. The prosecution does not deny that the August 10th admission was made. The prosecution denies that the August 10th admission was true. Blackwell’s affidavit does not claim that the August 10th admission was true.
The fact of the August 10th admission would not be admissible at a retrial of Mosden.
It could only be used to impeach Blackwell. As such, it would be without substantive value. Ruhala v. Roby (1967), 379 Mich 102. Inadmissible hearsay testimony, which cannot change the result of the *515original trial, cannot be made tbe basis of a motion for new trial upon grounds of newly discovered evidence.
Townsend v. Sain (1963), 372 US 293 (83 S Ct 745, 9 L Ed 2d 770), is not involved. Blackwell’s affidavit does not constitute a “substantial allegation of newly discovered evidence.” No evidentiary hearing was necessary.
The trial court should be affirmed.
Black, J., concurred with T. E. Brennan, C. J.
T. G-. Kavanagh, J., took no part in the decision of this case.