State v. Muzerolle

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Muzerolle

520 A.2d 1302, 1987 Me. LEXIS 635

CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine

DecidedFebruary 10, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 520 A.2d 1302 (State v. Muzerolle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Muzerolle, 520 A.2d 1302, 1987 Me. LEXIS 635 (Me. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

WATHEN, Justice.

Defendant David Muzerolle appeals from the Superior Court’s denial of his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Defendant argued that subsequent to his conviction for armed robbery, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 651 (1983), John Alden Hewey, who plead guilty to the same armed robbery, came forward with exculpatory information. This Court has consistently held that evidence of which the defendant was aware at the time of trial cannot later form the basis for a new trial if no efforts were made to produce it at trial. State v. Young, 413 A.2d 161, 162 (Me.1980). A defendant is required to make diligent efforts to introduce any exculpatory facts before he may argue reasonable excuse for failing to present the evidence. State v. McDonough, 350 A.2d 556, 561 (Me.1976). At the motion hearing in this case, the defendant testified that prior to trial he knew Hewey could offer exculpatory evidence. At that time, he also told his attorney that Hewey had evidence that could exonerate him. In spite of this knowledge, the defendant made no attempt to call Hewey as a witness. Thus, Hewey’s testimony did not constitute evidence that would require a new trial. Because defendant did not satisfy this threshhold requirement, it is not necessary to discuss whether he proved the remaining prerequisites for obtaining a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. State v. Casale, 148 Me. 312, 319-320, 92 A.2d 718, 722 (1952).

The entry must be:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WATHEN, Justice.

Defendant David Muzerolle appeals from the Superior Court’s denial of his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Defendant argued that subsequent to his conviction for armed robbery, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 651 (1983), John Alden Hewey, who plead guilty to the same armed robbery, came forward with exculpatory information. This Court has consistently held that evidence of which the defendant was aware at the time of trial cannot later form the basis for a new trial if no efforts were made to produce it at trial. State v. Young, 413 A.2d 161, 162 (Me.1980). A defendant is required to make diligent efforts to introduce any exculpatory facts before he may argue reasonable excuse for failing to present the evidence. State v. McDonough, 350 A.2d 556, 561 (Me.1976). At the motion hearing in this case, the defendant testified that prior to trial he knew Hewey could offer exculpatory evidence. At that time, he also told his attorney that Hewey had evidence that could exonerate him. In spite of this knowledge, the defendant made no attempt to call Hewey as a witness. Thus, Hewey’s testimony did not constitute evidence that would require a new trial. Because defendant did not satisfy this threshhold requirement, it is not necessary to discuss whether he proved the remaining prerequisites for obtaining a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. State v. Casale, 148 Me. 312, 319-320, 92 A.2d 718, 722 (1952).

The entry must be:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

520 A.2d 1302, 1987 Me. LEXIS 635, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-muzerolle-me-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack