State v. Daymus

How courts have described this case

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

• facts or evidence not introduced or otherwise made use of at trial because they were forgotten until after the trial do not constitute newly discovered evidence
• “Information within the personal knowledge of defendant does not become newly discovered evidence by reason of later recollection.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Hirsch
  Nebraska Supreme Court· 1994-01-28· cited 133×
• State v. Sims
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1965-12-16· cited 43×
• Commonwealth v. Duest
  Massachusetts Appeals Court· 1991-06-04· cited 20×
• State v. Schantz
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1967-05-11· cited 15×
• State v. Superior Court
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1963-10-16· cited 11×
• State v. Fullen
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1965-08-09· cited 7×
• State v. Wright
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1967-05-15· cited 1×
• State v. Nirav Patel
  Supreme Court of New Jersey· 2026-05-26

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Daymus
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1961-12-27· cited 41×
• People v. Williams
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1909-10-26· cited 20×
• The People v. Ogbin
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1938-02-16· cited 16×
• Whitt v. Farley
  Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)· 1955-02-25· cited 8×
• State v. Love
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1954-02-23· cited 7×
• State v. Hill
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1960-05-25· cited 6×