Bean v. State
Idaho Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
BURNETT, Judge.
This is a post-conviction relief case. Scott Bean is serving a fixed (determinate) life term of imprisonment for first degree murder. He seeks relief because a codefendant has recanted testimony adverse to him. The issue is whether the recantation “requires vacation of the conviction or sentence in the interest of justice____” I.C. § 19-4901(a)(4). The district court, focusing primarily upon the conviction, denied relief. Today, for reasons explained below, we uphold the district court’s ruling as to the conviction, but we remand the case for additional consideration relating…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- State v. LopezIdaho Court of Appeals · 1984
- Larrison v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1928
- Walter Sanders v. James E. Sullivan and Robert Abrams, the Attorney General of the State of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1988
- State v. LankfordIdaho Supreme Court · 1989
- State v. ScrogginsIdaho Supreme Court · 1986
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Gould v. Commissioner of CorrectionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2011
- Bean v. StateIdaho Supreme Court · 1991
- State v. GriffithIdaho Court of Appeals · 2007
- Bean v. StateIdaho Court of Appeals · 1993
- Bean v. StateIdaho Court of Appeals · 1990
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.