State v. Cureton

How courts have described this case

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

• holding, post-Hill, that where all counts in an indictment referred to the same victim, the same offense date, and were related to each other, the counts could be read together for purposes of providing notice to the defendant
• holding, post-Hill, that where all counts in an indictment referred to the same victim, the same offense date, and were related to each other, the counts could be read together for purposes of providing notice to the defendant
• holding, post-Hill, that where all counts in an indictment referred to the same victim, the same offense date, and were related to each other, the counts could be read together for purposes of providing notice to the defendant
• holding, post-Hill, that where all counts in an indictment referred to the same victim, the same offense date, and were related to each other, the counts could be read together for purposes of providing notice to the defendant
• discussing interplay between constitutional right to present a defense and admissibility of confession by third party suspect
• “To obtain a new trial [based on such a claim], the defendant must demonstrate that the State presented false testimony, the State knew the testimony was false, and the testimony was material.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).