State v. Ballard
State v. Ballard, 321 So. 2d 318 (La. 1975).
Cited by
Overruled in 1
- Aupied v. Aupied 38 So. 3d 899 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
- Rene Windham Harper v. Randolph Wallace Harper La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
- Harper v. Harper 977 So. 2d 312 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
- Bickham v. Bickham 849 So. 2d 707 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
- Rosenbloom v. Bauchat 654 So. 2d 873 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
- Norvell v. Norvell 629 So. 2d 1312 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
- Williams v. Williams 541 So. 2d 928 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
- Roberts v. Roberts 542 So. 2d 517 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
- Lanclos v. Castille 482 So. 2d 947 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
- Hogan v. Hogan 465 So. 2d 73 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
- Hendrix v. Hendrix 457 So. 2d 815 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
- Morgan v. Morgan 452 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
Opinion text
PER CURIAM. While an appeal from his conviction for second degree murder was pending in this court, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial in the trial court on the basis of newly discovered evidence. C.Cr.P. 851(3). He requested that we remand this case to the trial court for disposition of the motion for new trial, in accordance with C.Cr.P. 853: “When the motion for a new trial is based on ground (3) of Article 851, the motion ma" be filed within one year after verdict or judgment of the trial court, although a sentence has been imposed or a motion for a new trial has been previously filed; but if an appeal is pending the court may hear the motion only on remand of the case.” The record before us does not contain the transcript of testimony, and is, therefore, inadequate to a determination of the merit of motion for new trial. Therefore the case is remanded to the district court for a ruling on the motion for a new trial.