DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Talbot, 408 So. 2d 861.

81 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Joshua David Evans La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
    in deciding a new trial motion.” This court explained the duty of a trial judge considering a new trial motion based on newly discovered evidence in State v. Talbot[, (on rehearing)]: The scope of the trial judge’s duty toward the motion for a new trial based upon the new evidence must be kept in mind.
  • State of Louisiana v. Lamondre Tucker 181 So. 3d 590 La. 2015
  • State v. Armstead 159 So. 3d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    “If the evidence supporting the guilty verdict contains significant contradictions and discrepancies, newly discovered evidence of relatively minor importance might be sufficient.”
  • State of Louisiana v. Quincy McKinnies, Jr. 171 So. 3d 861 La. 2014
  • State v. Taylor 143 So. 3d 1248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    “If the evidence supporting the guilty verdict | incontains significant contradictions and discrepancies, newly discovered evidence of relatively minor importance might be sufficient....”
  • State v. Quang T. Do 130 So. 3d 377 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    The Louisiana Supreme Court defined the trial court’s obligation in evaluating a stating: The scope of the trial judge’s duty toward the motion for a new trial based upon the new evidence must be kept in mind.
  • State v. Snyder 128 So. 3d 370 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    State v. Chairs, 12-363 (La.App.
  • State v. Williams 119 So. 3d 131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State v. Chairs 106 So. 3d 1232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State v. Bell 53 So. 3d 437 La. 2010
  • Explained State v. Vallier 34 So. 3d 1168 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    we explained the trial judge's obligation as follows: The scope of the trial judge's duty toward the motion for a new trial based upon the new evidence must be kept in mind.
  • Explained State of Louisiana v. Carey Vallier, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    we explained the trial judge's obligation as follows: The scope of the trial judge’s duty toward the motion for a new trial based upon the new evidence must be kept in mind.
  • Explained State v. Coleman 959 So. 2d 465 La. 2007
    we explained the trial judge's obligation as follows: The scope of the trial judge's duty toward the motion for a new trial based upon the new evidence must be kept in mind.
  • State v. Singleton 953 So. 2d 168 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); State v. Jacobs, 99-991 (La.5/15/01)
  • State of Louisiana v. Justin Charles Singleton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
  • State v. Smith 936 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    ( on rehearing ), cited with approval in State v. Watts, 00-0602 (La.1/14/03), 835 So.
  • State v. Miller 923 So. 2d 625 La. 2006
    (on reh'g)(interior quotation marks and citations omitted).
  • State v. Persley 918 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    (on rehearing), the supreme court stated, inter alia: The scope of the trial judge's duty toward the motion for a new trial based upon the new evidence must be kept in mind.
  • LEEBRON AND ROBINSON RENT a CAR v. Monroe 907 So. 2d 875 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    Smith v. West Virginia Oil & Gas, Co., Schwegmann Brothers Giant Super Markets, supra .
  • State of Louisiana v. Wade Knott, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    In speaking of abuse of discretion, stated: Neither the appellate nor supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may be invoked to review the granting or the refusal to grant a new trial, except for error of law.
  • State v. Knott 908 So. 2d 28 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    In speaking of abuse of discretion, stated: Neither the appellate nor supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may be invoked to review the granting or the refusal to grant a new trial, except for error of law.
  • State v. Watts 835 So. 2d 441 La. 2003
    (on rehearing), Justice Dennis explained: The scope of the trial judge's duty toward the motion for a new trial based upon the new evidence must be kept in mind.
  • STATE IN INTERES OF FH v. House 801 So. 2d 1123 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    on rehearing; State of Louisiana in the Interest of KLB v. Biggs, 29,512 (La.App.2d Cir.2/28/97), .
  • State ex rel. F.H. v. House 801 So. 2d 1123 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    on rehearing; State of Louisiana in the Interest of KLB v. Biggs, 29,512 (La.App.2d Cir.2/28/97), .
  • State Ex Rel. Jb 794 So. 2d 899 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    on rehearing; State, in the Interest of D.T., supra .
  • State ex rel. J.B. 794 So. 2d 899 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    on rehearing; State, in the Interest of D.T., supra.
  • State v. Davis 768 So. 2d 201 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
  • State v. Bright 776 So. 2d 1134 La. 2000
  • State ex rel. A.N.B. 750 So. 2d 413 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    on rehearing; State, in the Interest of D.T., supra.
  • State v. Cureaux 736 So. 2d 318 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
  • State v. Richardson 729 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
  • State v. Metoyer 720 So. 2d 148 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    Knapper ; (on rehearing).
  • State, in Interest of Jm 702 So. 2d 45 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    on rehearing; State of Louisiana in the Interest of KLB v. Biggs, 29,512 (La.App.2d Cir. 2/28/97), .
  • State v. Walter 695 So. 2d 1340 La. 1997
  • State in Interest of DT v. KT 697 So. 2d 665 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    on rehearing; State of Louisiana in the Interest of KLB v. Biggs, 29,512 (La.App.2d Cir. 2/28/97), .
  • State ex rel. D.T. v. K.T. 697 So. 2d 665 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    on rehearing; State of Louisiana in the Interest of KLB v. Biggs, 29,512 (La.App.2d Cir. 2/28/97), .
  • State in Interest of KLB v. Biggs 690 So. 2d 965 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    State v. Talbot, *969 on rehearing.
  • State v. Guy 669 So. 2d 517 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
  • State v. May 639 So. 2d 1225 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • State v. Brown 636 So. 2d 964 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • State v. Bibb 626 So. 2d 913 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
  • State v. Hammons 597 So. 2d 990 La. 1992
    a trial judge in making such a determination should not weigh the new evidence as if he or she were a jury deciding guilt or innocence, but should ascertain whether there is new material fit for a new jury's judgment.
  • State v. Allen 589 So. 2d 1180 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
  • State v. Myers 584 So. 2d 242 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
  • State v. Clark 581 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
  • State v. Jackson 570 So. 2d 227 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
    (on rehearing); Moore, 8A Federal Practice § 33.03[1] at pp. 33-18 and 33-19 (2d ed. 1983); Wright, 3 Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal § 557, p. 315 (2d ed. 1982).
  • State v. Willis 566 So. 2d 1064 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
  • State v. Brown 557 So. 2d 1085 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
  • State v. Knapper 555 So. 2d 1335 La. 1990
  • State v. Chavis 542 So. 2d 181 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989