Comolli v. State
| Decision Date | 16 February 1906 |
| Citation | 63 A. 186,78 Vt. 423 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | COMOLLI v. STATE. |
Petition by David Comolli for a new trial for newly discovered evidence. Petition denied.
Argued before ROWELL, C. J., and TYLER, MUNSON, WATSON, and MILES, JJ.
John N. Harvey, for petitioner. S. Hollister Jackson, State's Atty., for the State.
It is considered that the newly discovered evidence attached to the petition would not be likely to produce a different result on another trial. It is also considered that the affidavits thereto attached do not show the requisite diligence. They state only that the affiants "used due diligence," which is only an opinion, upon which the court cannot act. They should have stated the facts, that the court might judge of the matter.
Petition dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hathorn
...the petition itself must show that due diligence has been used. Stevens, alias May, v. State, 77 Vt. 330, 333, 60 A. 1; Comoli v. State, 78 Vt. 423, 424, 63 A. 186; Ploof v. Putnam, 83 Vt. 494, 76 A. 145; Hemmenway v. Lincoln, 82 Vt. 465, 466, 467, 73 A. 1073; Picknell v. Fulton, 89 Vt. 51,......
- State v. Clarence Hathorn
-
Hemenwat v. Lincoln
...her search for new evidence." This is not only insufficient as an allegation of fact (May v. State, 77 Vt. 330, 60 Atl. 1; Comoli v. State, 78 Vt. 423, 63 Atl. 186), but it relates to what took place since the trial; while the real question is: What effort did the petitioner make before the......
-
Ploof v. Putnam
...opinion of what was diligence. He should have stated facts that would enable us to judge of the matter, and none are stated. Comoli v. State. 78 Vt. 423, 63 Atl. 186; Hemmenway v. Lincoln, 82 Vt. 465, 73 Atl. Petition dismissed, with costs. ...