State v. Kennison
| Decision Date | 11 May 1932 |
| Citation | 160 A. 201 |
| Parties | STATE v. KENNISON. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
General Motion from Superior Court, Lincoln County.
Harold L. Kennison was convicted as an accessory before the fact to breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, and he appeals from orders overruling his motions for new trial and brings exceptions to the denial of one of such motions.
Appeal dismissed, exceptions overruled, and Judgment rendered for the State.
Argued before PATTANGALL, C. J., and DUNN, STURGIS, BARNES, FARRINGTON, and THAXTER, JJ.
Weston M. Hilton, Co. Atty., of Damariscotta, for the State.
Adelbert L. Miles, of Rockland, for respondent.
The respondent was convicted as an accessory before the fact to breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony. His motion for a new trial on the usual grounds was overruled by the presiding justice and an appeal taken to this court. Exceptions to the denial of the motion were also reserved and allowed.
Before the case was argued in the Law Court, the respondent filed in the trial court a special motion for a new trial on the ground of alleged newly discovered evidence. The motion was denied and the appeal then taken is brought forward to be considered with the pending case.
The principals in the felony, upon their arraignment, pleaded guilty and testified at the respondent's trial that he counseled and procured their wrongdoing, and their statements were supported in some measure by attending facts and circumstances. A reading of the entire evidence, including the respondent's denial of guilt, discloses no sufficient reason for setting aside the verdict.
The respondent's exceptions to the denial of his motion for a new trial were erroneously taken and allowed in the trial court. This court has jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion for a new trial in a criminal case only on appeal.
The special motion for a new trial is without merit. One of the principals in the felony, when solicited by the respondent, indicated a willingness to change the testimony he gave at the trial, but upon the stand in support of the special motion affirmed the truth of the substantial details of his original statement. We find no new evidence which would justify a different Verdict.
Appeal dismissed.
Exceptions overruled.
Judgment for the state.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dow v. State
...On the other hand, the denial of a motion for a new trial after verdict could not be the basis for review on exceptions. State v. Kennison, 1932, 131 Me. 494, 160 A. 201. But such refusal of a motion for new trial after verdict was properly before the Court on appeal. State v. Bobb, supra. ......