State v. Ballard
Syllabus
motion for appropriate relief Brady and Napue claims failed because of lack of probability allegedly wrongfully withheld or intentionally false evidence would have changed result of trial had it not been withheld or introduced evidentiary hearing was required on ineffective assistance of counsel claim to determine whether failure to investigate key alibi witness prejudiced outcome of trial gatekeeper order prohibiting the filing of future motions for appropriate relief was erroneous where there was no history of filing successive frivolous motions for appropriate relief
Cites
11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court· 1984-06-25· cited 123,578×
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court· 1963-05-13· cited 33,902×
- Wiggins v. Smith, WardenSupreme Court· 2003-06-26· cited 5,961×
- Napue v. IllinoisSupreme Court· 1959-06-15· cited 4,234×
- David B. Clinkscale v. Harold E. Carter, WardenSixth Circuit· 2004-09-17· cited 175×
- Bryant v. ScottFifth Circuit· 1994-08-17· cited 154×
- Donald G. Griffin v. Warden, Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center Attorney General of the State of MarylandFourth Circuit· 1992-07-28· cited 85×
- William Grooms v. Herman Solem, Warden of the South Dakota State PenitentiaryEighth Circuit· 1991-01-08· cited 38×
- State v. HowardCourt of Appeals of North Carolina· 2016-04-19· cited 14×
- State v. LoftonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina· 2018-05-01· cited 9×
- State v. SantillanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina· 2018-05-01· cited 7×
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.