Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Talley v. State, 159 P. 59.
- State v. Jeffrey 463 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
- State v. Jeffrey 463 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
- State v. Turner 455 P.2d 443 Ariz. 1969
-
State v. Turner
455 P.2d 443
Ariz. 1969
* * * The refusal of a new trial for newly-discovered evidence on an affidavit incredible in view of the claim made and evidence at the trial is not error.’ “This court, in the early case of Talley v. State, supra [ , 159 P. 59 ], stated: “ ‘The affidavits are so widely at variance with the actual facts as they were told on the trial that we think they may be wholly discredited.
- State v. Martin 426 P.2d 639 Ariz. 1967
-
State v. Martin
426 P.2d 639
Ariz. 1967
159 P. 59 (1916); , 151 P. 947 (1915).” Therefore, evidence which may have a bearing on the questions of whether the defendant understood the nature or quality of his act and whether he knew right from wrong, State v. Brock, supra, will not be deemed too remote for the jury’s considera
- State v. Blankenship 406 P.2d 729 Ariz. 1965
-
State v. Blankenship
406 P.2d 729
Ariz. 1965
A motion for new trial will not be granted on the ground of newly-discovered evidence where such evidence is merely cumulative, State v. Villavicencio,' *65 , ; impeaching, , ; , 282 P. 930 ; contradictory, , 159 P. 59 , or would probably not have changed the verdict or findings of the court.
- State v. Griffin 406 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
-
State v. Griffin
406 P.2d 397
Ariz. 1965
159 P. 59 (1916); , 151 P. 947 (1915).
- State v. Fullen 404 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
-
State v. Fullen
404 P.2d 732
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
159 P. 59 (1916) ; , 136 P. 631 (1913); , 229 P. 1028 (1924).
- State v. Sneed 403 P.2d 816 Ariz. 1965
-
State v. Sneed
403 P.2d 816
Ariz. 1965
“The state admits that new trials should be granted when new evidence .is discovered to the effect that another person is guilty of the crime of which the defendant has been convicted, but urges that the question of the sufficiency of the new evidence is purely discretionary with the trial court, , 159 P. [58, 59], 64; Scheuer v. State, 31 Mont.
- Preston v. Denkins 382 P.2d 686 Ariz. 1963
- Preston v. Denkins 382 P.2d 686 Ariz. 1963
- State v. Love 266 P.2d 1079 Ariz. 1954
-
State v. Love
266 P.2d 1079
Ariz. 1954
159 P. 59 ; , ; , ; , ; , ; , .
- State of Arizona v. Pierce 129 P.2d 916 Ariz. 1942
- State of Arizona v. Pierce 129 P.2d 916 Ariz. 1942
- Turley v. State of Arizona 59 P.2d 312 Ariz. 1936
- Turley v. State of Arizona 59 P.2d 312 Ariz. 1936
- Hunter v. State 30 P.2d 499 Ariz. 1934
-
Hunter v. State
30 P.2d 499
Ariz. 1934
The state admits that new trials should be granted when new evidence is discovered to the effect that another person is guilty of the crime of which the defendant has been convicted, but urges that the question of the sufficiency of the new evidence is purely discretionary with the trial court, , 159 Pac.
- Post v. State 15 P.2d 246 Ariz. 1932
- Post v. State 15 P.2d 246 Ariz. 1932
- Indian Fred v. State 282 P. 930 Ariz. 1929
- Indian Fred v. State 282 P. 930 Ariz. 1929
- Grijalva v. State 260 P. 188 Ariz. 1927
- Grijalva v. State 260 P. 188 Ariz. 1927
- Flowers v. State 229 P. 1028 Ariz. 1924
- Flowers v. State 229 P. 1028 Ariz. 1924
- Terrasas v. State 219 P. 226 Ariz. 1923
- Terrasas v. State 219 P. 226 Ariz. 1923
- Garcia v. State 162 P. 605 Ariz. 1917