Legal Opinion

State v. Dixon

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 10, 1963No. 292PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Per curiam

There is no thaumaturgy which can transform into newly discovered evidence defendant’s ignorance at the time of his trial that the blood sample, about which he did not inquire, would not have been available if he had demanded it. The seven prerequisites to the granting of >a new trial for newly discovered evidence are listed seriatim by Stacy, C.J., in State v. Casey, 201 N.C. 620, 161 S.E. 81. Defendant meets not one of these requirements. Furthermore, a motion for a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court which is not…

2Cases cited3 opinions

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. BeaverSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  2. State v. SaulsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  3. State v. RhodesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2013
  4. State v. MorrowSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
  5. State v. MartinCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979

4 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