due diligence; (4) that it is material to the issue; and (5) that it is not merely cumulative or impeaching, unless it is clear that such impeachment would have resulted in a different verdict.” State v. Marshall, 491 A.2d 554, 559 (Me.1985) (quoting State v. Lord, 458 A.2d 432, 433 (Me.1983)). When the “newly discovered” evidence is “merely corroborative of evidence which [the defendant] could himself have presented, and which he elected not to disclose, to the jury,” the defendant is estopped “from seeking a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.” State v. Harding, 408 A.2d 1003, 1005 (Me.1979). [¶ 26] Here, Kelly’s counsel admitted that he knew Kelly had previously worn the mask. Moreover, Kelly presumably knew that Bean, and perhaps others, had seen him wearing t 98) (<HOLDING>); McMullen v. State, 714 So.2d 368, 373
holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion holding it was not an abuse of discretion to deny funds holding that we review for abuse of discretion a decision to exclude a document for lack of authentication holding it was not an abuse of discretion to exclude testimony holding the courts ruling to admit or exclude evidence will only be reversed if it constituted an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law