State v. Stewart

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Stewart

144 A. 383, 127 Me. 487, 1929 Me. LEXIS 33

DecidedJanuary 16, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 144 A. 383 (State v. Stewart) 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. Stewart, 144 A. 383, 127 Me. 487, 1929 Me. LEXIS 33 (Me. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Sturgis, J.

Convicted in the Supreme Judicial Court at nisi prius upon search and seizure process for keeping intoxicating liquor with intent that the same be sold within the State in violation of law, this respondent brings a bill of exceptions and a general motion for a new trial to this Court.

The respondent’s general motion has no place in the criminal procedure of this state. This Court sitting in banc has no jurisdiction of a motion in a criminal case for a new trial on the usual grounds. In criminal cases a motion to set aside a verdict as against evidence, or the weight of the evidence, is to be decided in the first instance by the Justice presiding at nisi prius. If the motion is denied in a case involving a felony, the respondent may appeal to the next law term. R. S., Chap. 136, Sec. 28. If the case involves a misdemeanor only, there is no provision of statute for an appeal, and the ruling of the trial Judge is final. State v. Perry, 115 Me., 203; State v. Gustin, 123 Me., 307.

The single exception reserved presents no error. Counsel for the respondent sought to ascertain the present whereabouts of the original warrant. The case was heard on appeal from the trial justice, with copies of the whole process filed as required by R. S., Chap. 134, Sec. 18. The bill of exceptions fails to disclose any ground upon which the evidence excluded could have added to the respondent’s defense, or its exclusion prejudiced his cause.

Motion for a new trial dismissed.

Exceptions overruled.

Judgment for the State.

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

Sturgis, J.

Convicted in the Supreme Judicial Court at nisi prius upon search and seizure process for keeping intoxicating liquor with intent that the same be sold within the State in violation of law, this respondent brings a bill of exceptions and a general motion for a new trial to this Court.

The respondent’s general motion has no place in the criminal procedure of this state. This Court sitting in banc has no jurisdiction of a motion in a criminal case for a new trial on the usual grounds. In criminal cases a motion to set aside a verdict as against evidence, or the weight of the evidence, is to be decided in the first instance by the Justice presiding at nisi prius. If the motion is denied in a case involving a felony, the respondent may appeal to the next law term. R. S., Chap. 136, Sec. 28. If the case involves a misdemeanor only, there is no provision of statute for an appeal, and the ruling of the trial Judge is final. State v. Perry, 115 Me., 203; State v. Gustin, 123 Me., 307.

The single exception reserved presents no error. Counsel for the respondent sought to ascertain the present whereabouts of the original warrant. The case was heard on appeal from the trial justice, with copies of the whole process filed as required by R. S., Chap. 134, Sec. 18. The bill of exceptions fails to disclose any ground upon which the evidence excluded could have added to the respondent’s defense, or its exclusion prejudiced his cause.

Motion for a new trial dismissed.

Exceptions overruled.

Judgment for the State.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 A. 383, 127 Me. 487, 1929 Me. LEXIS 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-stewart-me-1929.