Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

259 N.C. 249

130 S.E.2d 333

State v. Dixon

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 10, 1963

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1963-04-10

Relies on State v. Casey · State v. Williams

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1963-04-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently June 2013

16 state decisions

80196319701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

*251 Per Curiam.

¶1 There is no thaumaturgy which can transform into newly discovered evidence defendant’s ignorance at the time of his trial that the blood sample, about which he did not inquire, would not have been available if he had demanded it. The seven prerequisites to the granting of >a new trial for newly discovered evidence are listed seriatim by Stacy, C.J., in State v. Casey, 201 N.C. 620, 161 S.E. 81. Defendant meets not one of these requirements. Furthermore, a motion for a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court which is not reviewable in the absence of an abuse. State v. Williams, 244 N.C. 459, 94 S.E. 2d 374. Judge Paul’s ruling denying defendant’s motion both as a matter of right and in his discretion met the requirements of judicial decorum.

¶2 Appeal dismissed.

/259/nc/249 · .json · Public domain