Noojin v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Brady had no application where the content of the alleged exculpatory evidence was revealed through testimony at trial
• holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding a statement made within twenty-five minutes of discovering two dead bodies was made under the stress of excitement caused by the event
• recognizing the trial court's finding that the defendant had a history of criminal activity that was supported by arguments of counsel and the Presentence Investigation Report
• recognizing the trial court’s finding that the defendant had a history of criminal activity that was supported by arguments of counsel and the Presentence Investigation Report
• “This unpreserved evidence does not meet the requirement of possessing ‘an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed.’ It is not exculpatory at all.”
• \The aggregate sentence of 100-years is not manifestly unreasonable.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).