State v. Curtis Maxie, 241 A.3d 124

Curtis Maxie was indicted on multiple counts arising from April 2014 events, including three counts of first‑degree sexual assault and counts for sex trafficking and conspiracy; he was convicted on all counts in 2016.
On direct appeal this Court vacated Maxie’s convictions for sex trafficking and conspiracy because the trafficking statute was defective, but affirmed the sexual‑assault convictions. (State v. Maxie)
After the appellate decision, Maxie filed a second Rule 33 motion for a new trial, arguing the vacatur of counts 4 and 6 was "newly discovered evidence" and that evidence admitted on those now‑defunct counts had prejudiced the jury as to the sexual‑assault counts.
The trial justice denied the motion, finding the background evidence tied to counts 4 and 6 was factually connected to the sexual‑assault counts and relevant to elements such as force or coercion, and concluding the appellate disposition was not "new evidence."
The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a disposition on direct appeal is not the kind of "newly discovered evidence" that permits a post‑verdict Rule 33 motion and that Maxie’s motion was therefore untimely under the ten‑day rule.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether vacatur on direct appeal qualifies as "newly discovered evidence" under Super. R. Crim. P. 33, permitting a timely new‑trial motion	State: appellate disposition is not "evidence" under Rule 33; Rule 33 requires newly discovered facts bearing on guilt/innocence; motion untimely	Maxie: vacatur of counts 4 and 6 is newly available and shows evidence admitted on those counts prejudiced his trial on sexual‑assault counts	Court: vacatur on appeal is not "newly discovered evidence" for Rule 33; motion untimely; denial affirmed

State v. Maxie, 187 A.3d 330 (R.I. 2018) (appellate vacatur of trafficking counts formed the factual backdrop of this motion)
United States v. Hough, 276 F.3d 884 (6th Cir. 2002) (disposition on direct appeal is not "new evidence" for a new trial)
United States v. King, 735 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2013) (change in law is not newly discovered evidence under Rule 33)
State v. Gatcomb, 478 A.2d 1129 (Me. 1984) (strict definition of "newly discovered evidence" requires evidence bearing on guilt or innocence)
State v. Messa, 593 A.2d 957 (R.I. 1991) (example of newly discovered witness testimony warranting a new trial)
State v. Drew, 79 A.3d 32 (R.I. 2013) (describing the two‑prong Rule 33 newly discovered evidence test)
State v. Champion, 873 A.2d 92 (R.I. 2005) (ten‑day time limit in Rule 33 is jurisdictional)