Quantcast

BRYANT McARTHUR v. STATE OF MARYLAND

The court did not abuse its discretion in finding that appellant had failed to act with due diligence to discover the alleged newly discovered evidence within one year after the imposition of his sentence. Second, the court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that McArthur failed to demonstrate, as required by statute, that the alleged newly-discovered evidence created a “substantial or significant possibility that the result [of the trial] may have been different.”