State v. Rogers

• Decision Date: 17 March 1926
• Citation: 132 A. 521
• Parties: STATE v. ROGERS.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

132 A. 521

STATE

v. ROGERS.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

March 17, 1926.

Exceptions and on motion from Superior Court, Cumberland County, at Law.

Robert Rogers was convicted of adultery. On exceptions and motion for new trial. New trial granted.

Argued before WILSON, C. J., and PHILBROOK, DUNN, MORRILL, DEASY, and STURGIS, JJ.

C. F. Robinson and R. M. Ingalls, Co. Attys., both of Portland, for the State.

Harry E. Nixon, Jacob H. Berman, and Joseph E. P. Connolly, alt of Portland, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Indictment for adultery. The respondent excepts to the ruling of the court denying his motion for a directed verdict, and also moves for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.

One Peter Zarambokus testified that he discovered his wife and the respondent together under circumstances which, unexplained, were consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence. The explanation offered by the respondent was unconvincing. The jury's verdict was, upon the evidence presented to them, justified. But the respondent has presented to the court new evidence which apparently could not have been discovered by reasonable diligence at the time of trial. Two witnesses testify to admissions made to them by Zarambokus in important and vital particulars at variance with the testimony given by him at the trial. We think it probable that, if this testimony had been produced when the case was tried, the jury would have rendered a different verdict.

New trial granted.