Commonwealth v. Brady

Citations

• 76 Pa. Super. 488
• 1921 Pa. Super. LEXIS 173

Syllabus

<p>Criminal law — Larceny—New trial — After-discovered evidence.</p> <p>It is incumbent on parties who move for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence to satisfy the court — first, that the newly discovered evidence be such as could not, with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the trial; second, that it be not merely cumulative; and third, that it is such as to render a different result probable in the retrial of the case.</p> <p>On the trial of an indictment for larceny, a motion for a new trial on the ground of alleged after-discovered evidence is properly refused, where such evidence consists only of depositions of a witness that his testimony when taken at the penitentiary, after the trial, differed in some important particulars from that given by him on the witness stand. Such witness stands discredited by his own testimony, and would be open to the game criticism as that given on the first trial. There could be no certainty as to his persisting in his second statement, or that the witness would not again change his mind.</p>