Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Jackson, 217 So. 2d 372.

39 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Robert Leroy McCoy 218 So. 3d 535 La. 2016
State of Louisiana v. Wade Knott, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
See, So.2d 372 (1968); State v. Truax, 222 La.
State v. Knott 908 So. 2d 28 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
See, , (1968); State v. Truax, 222 La.
State v. Dickerson 579 So. 2d 472 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
State v. Jackson 570 So. 2d 227 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
See, e.g., State v. Talbot, supra, at 885 ; , (1968); State v. Truax, 222 La.
State v. Brown 557 So. 2d 1085 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
*1090 Talbot, supra; , (1968).
State v. Dewhirst 527 So. 2d 475 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
See, e.g., State v. Talbot, supra at 885 ; , (1968); State v. Truax, 222 La.
State v. Taylor 483 So. 2d 232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
(1968).” Since evidence as to the issues about which there was allegedly new evidence had already been presented at trial, the new evidence appears to be cumulative and not “newly discovered evidence”, which, if introduced at trial, would probably have changed the verdict of guilty.
State v. Ruffin 475 So. 2d 1375 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
See, e.g., State v. Talbot, supra at 885 ; , (1968); State v. Truax, 222 La.
State v. Krempel 471 So. 2d 841 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Prudholm 446 So. 2d 729 La. 1984
See, e.g., State v. Talbot, supra at 885 ; , (1968); State v. Truax, 222 La.
State v. Robicheaux 412 So. 2d 1313 La. 1982
State v. Talbot 408 So. 2d 861 La. 1981
See, , (1968); State v. Truax, 222 La.
State v. Bice 390 So. 2d 1270 La. 1980
State v. Eames 365 So. 2d 1361 La. 1979
See, e. g., , (1968); State v. Truax, 222 La.
State v. Provost 352 So. 2d 661 La. 1977
State v. Williams, supra ; State v. Brown, supra ; , (1968).
State v. Jones 344 So. 2d 1036 La. 1977
State v. Brown, supra ; , (1968).
State v. Lavene 343 So. 2d 185 La. 1977
State v. Williams 343 So. 2d 1026 La. 1977
State v. Brown, supra ; , (1968).
State v. Tyler 342 So. 2d 574 La. 1977
State v. Lee 340 So. 2d 180 La. 1976
State v. Brown 338 So. 2d 686 La. 1976
State v. Robinson 337 So. 2d 1168 La. 1976
State v. Bias 337 So. 2d 426 La. 1976
State v. Porter 330 So. 2d 281 La. 1976
(1968), we stated: "`Our jurisprudence is replete to the effect that the granting or refusing of motions for a new trial rests within the sound judicial discretion of trial judges, and great reliance is placed upon them by appellate courts that they will exercise that discretion well and soundly.
State v. Credeur 328 So. 2d 59 La. 1976
State v. Phanor 325 So. 2d 579 La. 1976
State v. Barfield, La., (1974); , (1968).
State v. Ferguson 307 So. 2d 361 La. 1975
State v. Jefferson 305 So. 2d 465 La. 1974
(1968); State v. Williams, 252 La.
State v. Bradford 298 So. 2d 781 La. 1974
State v. Rossi, supra; , (1968).
State v. Porter 296 So. 2d 302 La. 1974
351 , (1969); , (1968); State v. Copling, 242 La.
State v. Barfield 292 So. 2d 580 La. 1974
73 , (1969); , (1968); State v. Cancler, 252 La.
State v. Griffin 288 So. 2d 636 La. 1974
Aside from the discretion of the trial court to deny a new trial sought on allegedly newly-discovered evidence which is suspicious or incredible and not so material as to suggest a different result than the verdict reached, , (1968), the hearing does not disclose any reason why the "new" evidence could not by reasonable diligence have been discovered before the trial so as to be produced at it.
State v. Dickerson 282 So. 2d 456 La. 1973
State v. Randolph 275 So. 2d 174 La. 1973
See, e. g., , (1968) and State v. Truax, 222 La.
State v. Holloway 274 So. 2d 699 La. 1973
State v. Shaw 271 So. 2d 860 La. 1973
State v. Anderson 259 So. 2d 310 La. 1972
794 .” See, , ; State v. Williams, 252 La.
State v. Williams 235 So. 2d 578 La. 1970
83 , ; , ; State v. Coffil, 222 La.