State v. Mann

How courts have described this case

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

• “The court must also consider whether the defendant was diligent in attempting to develop the new evidence prior to trial.”
• “It is not enough that newly offered evidence merely bolsters, impeaches or contradicts the testimony given at trial; it must appear probable that admission of the new evidence would have changed the result of the trial.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Flores
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1989-04-11· cited 31×
• State v. Hickle
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1981-06-19· cited 24×
• State v. Van Den Berg
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1990-02-22· cited 13×
• State v. King
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2021-02-04· cited 11×
• State v. Compton
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1980-11-04· cited 2×
• State v. Meehan
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1983-11-30· cited 2×
• State v. D'Ambrosio
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1986-08-26· cited 2×
• State v. Knapp
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1980-09-26

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Scott
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1976-09-22· cited 84×
• State v. Moore
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1975-10-06· cited 25×
• State v. Holmes
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1974-04-09· cited 15×
• State v. Morrow
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1974-11-18· cited 11×
• State v. Thornburg
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1974-10-31· cited 10×
• State v. Davis
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1977-01-17· cited 10×
• State v. Galbraith
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1976-12-23· cited 10×