Cited by

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

81 citing documents.

State v. Ward 542 So. 2d 737 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Design Associates, Inc. v. Charpentier 537 So. 2d 1233 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
State v. Hammons 536 So. 2d 598 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
{on rehearing), the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth the scope of the trial judge’s duty in reviewing a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
State v. Dewhirst 527 So. 2d 475 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
State v. Smith 520 So. 2d 1252 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
State v. Jones 516 So. 2d 396 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
State v. Toussaint 502 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
State v. Caillouet 496 So. 2d 1312 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
(on rehearing new trial ordered on other grounds); State v. Martin, [ ] supra; reversed on other grounds, 447 U.S. 323 , 100 S.Ct.
Criticized State v. Robinson 485 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
(on rehearing new trial ordered on other grounds).
State v. Ruffin 475 So. 2d 1375 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
(4th Cir.1984); (on rehearing).
State v. Reynolds 473 So. 2d 886 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
State v. Hall 454 So. 2d 409 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Guerin 452 So. 2d 746 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Sanford 446 So. 2d 1381 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Woods 444 So. 2d 1332 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Robicheaux, supra; (La.
State v. Humphrey 445 So. 2d 1155 La. 1984
Bryan, supra; (On Rehearing).
State v. Prudholm 446 So. 2d 729 La. 1984
(on rehearing); Moore, 8A Federal Practice § 33.03[1] at pp. 33-18 and 33-19 (2d ed. 1983); Wright, 2 Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal § 557, p. 515 (2d ed. 1982).
State v. Henderson 444 So. 2d 751 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
One of the requisites for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence is that “it must be of such a nature that it would probably produce an acquittal in the event of retrial,”
State v. Johnson 440 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Chapman 438 So. 2d 1319 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Paul 439 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Kem Search, Inc. v. Sheffield 434 So. 2d 1067 La. 1983
State v. Neslo 433 So. 2d 73 La. 1983
(on rehearing new trial ordered on other grounds); State v. Martin, supra; (La.
State v. Chapman 436 So. 2d 451 La. 1983
Thus, we conclude that defendant has not shown that the trial court erred in refusing to find that the newly discovered evidence was so "fit for a new jury's judgment" that a new trial was required.
State v. Clayton 427 So. 2d 827 La. 1983
State v. Quebedeaux 424 So. 2d 1009 La. 1982
State v. Fuller, supra ; (On rehearing)
State v. Felde 422 So. 2d 370 La. 1982
State v. Huizar 414 So. 2d 741 La. 1982
State v. Wimberly 414 So. 2d 666 La. 1982
NOTES [1] (On Rehearing), three of the most important reasons for deferring to the trial judge's exercise of discretion are: his observation of the witnesses, his superior opportunity to get "the feel of the case," and the impracticability of framing a rule of decision where many disparate factors must be weighed.
State v. Robicheaux 412 So. 2d 1313 La. 1982
State v. Jackson, 253 La.
State v. Willie 410 So. 2d 1019 La. 1982
(on rehearing); Noonan v. Cunard Steamship Co., 375 F.2d 69, 71 (2d Cir. 1967).