State v. Rankin

2 Citing cases

  1. State v. Rosario

    2024 Me. 53 (Me. 2024)

    Moreover, there is nothing "unusual" about the circumstances and there is no other discernible basis for the late filing. See State v. Rankin, 666 A.2d 123, 127 (Me. 1995) (granting a late motion for a new trial due to the "unusual" nature of the case). Simply put, Rosario's Rule 33 motion was untimely.

  2. State v. Carr

    2012 Me. 136 (Me. 2012)   Cited 4 times

    The court may even grant a defendant a new trial if “required in the interest of justice.” U.C.D.R.P.—Bangor 33; see State v. Rankin, 666 A.2d 123, 126–27 (Me.1995) (stating that the State's failure to disclose evidence may form an adequate basis for the grant of a new trial pursuant to M.R.Crim. P. 33).