Legal Opinion

State v. Morrow

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided March 17, 1965No. 249PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PeR Cueiam.

The evidence offered by defendant in support of his motion was insufficient to establish the prerequisites for granting a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence stated by Stacy, C.J., in the oft-cited case of S. v. Casey, 201 N.C. 620, 161 S.E. 81. Moreover, a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. S. v. Williams, 244 N.C. 459, 94 S.E. 2d 374; S. v. Dixon, 259 N.C. 249, 130 S.E. 2d 333. The findings of fact are amply supported by the evidence. As stated by Judge Martin, the testimony…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. . CaseySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
  2. State v. CaseySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
  3. State v. DixonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
  4. State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State v. BeaverSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  2. State v. BrittSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1987
  3. State v. SaulsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  4. State v. NickersonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1987
  5. State v. ByrdCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API