Committee Advisory Note [December 2014]
The Rule parallels the content of Rule 33 of the Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure but differs in the following respects.
First, in the second paragraph the references to “10 days” and “10-day period” are changed to “14 days” and “14-day period” to reflect the Court’s preference for calculating time periods for rule purposes in increments of 7 rather than increments of 5.
Second, in the second and third paragraphs “Unified Criminal Docket” replaces “criminal docket.”
Third, in the third paragraph “Law Court” replaces “appellate court” because the Superior Court no longer functions as an intermediate appellate court in the new unified process. The Law Court is now the sole appellate court. See Committee Advisory Note [December 2014] to M.R.U. Crim. P. 36.
[Advisory Notes to former Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure]
Advisory Committee Note—1978
[M.R. Crim. P. 33.] Rule 33 is amended to clarify the procedure for handling motions for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence when an appeal is pending. It authorizes the Superior Court to hold a hearing on the motion and to deny it. If the Superior Court Justice would grant the motion, he is to file a certificate in writing with the clerk stating that he would grant the motion, which certificate should be filed, docketed and forwarded to the clerk of the Law Court. The Law Court may then either immediately remand the case to permit the Superior Court Justice to grant the motion for a new trial or it may elect to decide the appeal before remanding the case. In the latter event if the Law Court sets aside the judgment and orders a new trial there would be no occasion for the Superior Court Justice to formally grant the motion for a new trial on remand. However, if the judgment is affirmed by the Law Court, upon remand the Superior Court Justice could then enter an order granting the new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. If the Superior Court denies the motion while an appeal is pending, defendant may appeal from that denial and supplement the record in the Law Court in order that the denial of a motion for a new trial may be considered along with the basic appeal.
Advisory Committee Note—1979
[M.R. Crim. P. 33.] Rule 33 is reparagraphed to make clear that the last paragraph applies to any motion for a new trial, irrespective of the ground therefor.
Advisory Committee Note—1992
[M.R. Crim. P. 33.] The amendment replaces the undefined phrase “final judgment” with the well-understood phrase “entry of the judgment in the criminal docket” to make clear that the two-year period for filing a motion for new trial based on the ground of newly discovered evidence is to be triggered by the date of entry of the judgment of conviction in the criminal docket. The phrase “final judgment” is ambiguous in meaning since, although it can be read to refer to the entry of judgment, it also can be read to refer to a wholly different triggering mechanism—namely, the date on which the appellate process is concluded if any appeal is taken or, if no appeal is taken, the last day on which an appeal could have been taken. 1 Cluchey & Seitzinger, Maine Criminal Practice, § 33.5 at 33-12 and 33-12.1 (1990).
