454 So. 2d 409 - State v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently March 2002
11 state decisions
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.
Relationships
Relies on 446 So. 2d 729 - State v. Prudholm · 340 So. 2d 180 - State v. Lee · 408 So. 2d 861 - State v. Talbot · State v. Clayton · Nicolosi v. Livingston Parish School Board
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“La.C.Cr.P. art. 851 provides the standard of review for determining whether a trial judge has erred in denying a motion for a new trial. That article provides, in pertinent part: The motion for a new trial is based on the supposition that injustice has been done the defendant, and, unless such is shown to have been the case the motion shall be denied, no matter upon what allegations it is grounded. The court, on motion of the defendant, shall grant a new trial whenever: * * * * * * (3) New and material evidence that, notwithstanding the exercise of reasonable diligence by the defendant, was not discovered before or during the trial, is available, and if the evidence had been introduced at the trial it would probably have changed the verdict or judgment of guilty; La.C.Cr.P. art. 851 contains four generally recognized requisites for a new trial motion based on newly discovered evidence: (1) the evidence must have been discovered since the trial; (2) failure to learn of the evidence at the time of trial must not be due to defendant's lack of diligence; (3) it must be material to the issues at the trial; and (4) it must be of such a nature that it would probably produce an acquittal in the event of retrial. State v. Prudholm, 446 So.2d 729 (La.1984); State v. Talbot, 408 So.2d 861 (La.1981) (on rehearing). The trial judge's application of these precepts to newly discovered evidence is entitled to great weight, and his denial of a new trial motion will not be disturbed on appeal ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Toussaint
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.