Carl v. State
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Johnson, Presiding Judge.
Richard John Carl, Jr. appeals his conviction of rape of a 14-year-old girl.
1. Carl contends that his motion for new trial should have been granted based on a claim of newly discovered evidence. We disagree.
A new trial should be granted due to newly discovered evidence when a defendant satisfies the six requirements of Timberlake v. State, 246 Ga. 488, 491 (1) (271 SE2d 792) (1980). Among these requirements are that the evidence has come to defendant’s knowledge since trial, that it was not owing to the want of due diligence that he did not acquire it sooner, and that…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Timberlake v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1980
- Humphrey v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1984
- Hawes v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1977
- Goodwin v. Cruz-PadilloSupreme Court of Georgia · 1995
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- State v. LaneSupreme Court of Georgia · 2020
- Felix v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1999
- Schofield v. HolseySupreme Court of Georgia · 2007
- Hunt v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 2005
- McNabb v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 2007
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.