 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Cookson12/1/2003
statements to the nurse about having a problem with Cookson and about Cookson following and stalking her were made to describe to the nurse the external source of her depression. Gould's statements were also pertinent to her treatment, including the provision of antidepressant drugs, given by the nurse practitioner. For these reasons, the court did not err in allowing the nurse practitioner to testify about the cause of Gould's depression or to recite Gould's statements to her.
III. New Trial Motion
Shortly after the trial, Cookson moved for a new trial. M.R. Crim. P. 33. He alleged that there was newly discovered evidence consisting of: (1) Bachelder's discovery that he had been mistaken in his testimony; (2) the discovery of the actual murder weapon; and (3) Vantol's confession. In addition, Cookson demanded a new trial on the ground that his due process rights were violated because his conviction was obtained through false testimony.
A. Newly Discovered Evidence
We review a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence for clear error and abuse of discretion. State v. Sheldon, 2000 ME 193, 7, 760 A.2d 1083, 1085. Factual findings stand unless clearly erroneous, but the decision as to whether the defendant has met the necessary elements is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Id. Furthermore, the need for finality and for the preservation of the integrity of criminal judgments causes us to regard a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence with disfavor. State v. Ardolino, 1999 ME 14, 8, 723 A.2d 870, 873.
To obtain a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, a defendant must establish by clear and convincing evidence that:
(1) the evidence is such as will probably change the result if a new trial is granted;
(2) it has been discovered since the trial;
(3) it could not have been discovered before the trial by the exercise of due diligence;
(4) it is material to the issue; and
(5) it is not merely cumulative or impeaching, unless it is clear that such impeachment would have resulted in a different verdict.
Id.; State v. Dechaine, 630 A.2d 234, 236 (Me. 1993). A defendant must "make all diligent efforts to introduce into evidence any existing exculpatory facts before he may be allowed to plead [that there was a] reasonable excuse for his failure to present that evidence." State v. Young, 413 A.2d 161, 162 (Me. 1980) (quoting State v. McDonough, 350 A.2d 556, 561 (Me. 1976)). "When evidence is known to the defendant at the time of trial, but its significance is not fully appreciated until after the trial, it is Ônot in the legal sense newly discovered' after the trial." Ardolino, 1999 ME 14, 9, 723 A.2d at 873 (quoting State v. Lund, 266 A.2d 869, 877 (Me. 1970)). The law is well settled that evidence is not newly discovered if the defendant and his attorney are aware of the evidence at the time of trial. McDonough, 350 A.2d at 560.
1. Error by Firearms Expert
At trial, the State's theory was that a Taurus Model PT-99-AF was the murder weapon. This gun was never located, but there was evidence that Cookson had possessed it. Shell casings known to have been fired from this gun were obtained by the police and examined by Bachelder, a firearms expert. It was his opinion that the Taurus Model PT-99-AF was the murder weapon because characteristics of shell casings found at the murder scene were the same as characteristics of the casings obtained from former owners of this gun. After trial, Bachelder learned, when he read an article about the class characteristics of the gun, t
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Maine Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|