State v. Bell
Supreme Court of Louisiana
1DissentMcCALEB, Justice
I do not agree that Bell is entitled to a new trial just because the testimony and confession of Brown is newly discovered evidence, which is relevant and material and not merely cumulative or merely corroborative. It is also essential, under R.S. 15:511, that the newly discovered evidence be of such a nature “ * * * that it ought to produce a different result than the verdict reached * * * This means, of course, that the newly discovered evidence be believable and credible and, in determining this question, the trial judge, who has seen and heard the witnesses testifying at the trial and on…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1886
- State v. SabaSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1943
- State v. HillSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1914
- State v. BartonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1933
- State v. DimmSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1923
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.