Skip to main content

Blankenship v. State

Citations

  • 447 A.2d 428
  • 1982 Del. LEXIS 391

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • adopting the Larrison test previously adopted under Delaware law in Johnson v. State, 410 A.2d 1014 (Del. 1980)
  • reaffirming the Larrison test as the standard for reviewing a motion for a new trial based on witness recantation, which the court previously adopted in Johnson v. State, 410 A.2d 1014 (Del. 1980)
  • “The holding of an evidentiary hearing to determine the merits of a Motion for a New Trial is within the discretion of the trial judge subject to review only for abuse of that discretion.”
  • “A Motion for a New Trial based upon a witness’ recantation is generally viewed with suspicion, and a denial of such a motion will not be reversed on appeal unless there has been an abuse of discretion by the Trial Court.”
  • “A Motion for a New Trial based upon a witness’ recantation is generally viewed with suspicion, and a denial of such a motion will not be reversed on appeal unless there has been an abuse of discretion by the Trial Court.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Herrmann, McNeilly, Quillen

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

19 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

46 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.