State v. Spann

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining a defendant moving for a new trial on the basis of after-discovered evidence must show the evidence (1) would probably change the result if a new trial were granted, (2) has been discovered since the trial, (3

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Mercer
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2009-01-12· cited 36×
• State v. Harris
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2011-02-23· cited 23×
• Johnson v. Catoe
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2001-06-11· cited 7×
• State v. Woods
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2000-01-24· cited 5×
• State v. Hill
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2004-05-11· cited 2×
• Jamison v. Cohen
  D. South Carolina· 2016-09-30· cited 1×
• State v. Prather
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2020-03-11
• State v. Adams
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2020-05-06
• State v. Charles Wakefield, Jr.
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2024-06-20

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Prince
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1993-12-13· cited 46×
• State v. Spann
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1983-10-13· cited 41×
• State v. Parker
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1967-02-24· cited 5×