Legal Opinion
Commonwealth v. Markham
Massachusetts Appeals Court
Decided October 29, 1980PublishedCited by 40 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtKass, J.
Upon a review of the record, we cannot say that the trial judge erred in denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial (Mass.R.Crim.P. 30[b], 378 Mass. 900 [1979]). The basis of the motion was newly discovered evidence.
It is hornbook law that a motion for a new trial is directed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, informed by the statutory standard. Davis v. Boston Elev. Ry., 235 Mass. 482, 496 (1920). Blaikie v. District Attorney for the Suffolk District, 375 Mass. 613, 618 (1978). On review, the decision of the trial judge in denying a motion for a new trial based on newly…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Davis v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1920
- Commonwealth v. DascalakisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
- Commonwealth v. KelleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1976
- Commonwealth v. De ChristoforoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1971
- Commonwealth v. BernierMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1971
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- Commonwealth v. GraceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1986
- Commonwealth v. MooreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1990
- Commonwealth v. ScanlonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1992
- Commonwealth v. CintronMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2001
- Commonwealth v. WilliamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1987
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.