Skip to main content

Hicks v. State

Citations

  • 913 A.2d 1189
  • 2006 Del. LEXIS 640
  • 2006 WL 3505506

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that to grant a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, the trial court must conc.lude: “(l) the evidence is of such a nature that it would have probably changed the resull if presented to the jury_; (2
  • explaining that defense’s failure to introduce “mere” impeachment evidence does not warrant new trial because such evidence would not create a substantive issue material to the defendant’s guilt
  • denying new trial because proffered evidence was “merely impeaching” rather than “substantive”
  • denying new trial because impeachment evidence was not “substantive”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Steele, Berger, Jacobs

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

22 cases in this archive cite 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.