State v. Campbell

24 Citing cases

  1. State v. Clark

    330 Mont. 8 (Mont. 2005)   Cited 32 times

    In doing so, the Kansas Court used language similar to Berry, stating that "[a] new trial should not be granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence unless the district court is satisfied the evidence would probably produce a different verdict . . ." Green, 508 P.2d at 889 (quoting State v. Campbell (Kan. 1971), 483 P.2d 495, 497), but it went a step further by assigning the trial judge the task of determining the veracity of the recantation. Green, 508 P.2d at 889.

  2. Baker v. State

    243 Kan. 1 (Kan. 1988)   Cited 68 times
    Holding evidence was not newly discovered where it was "certainly available on the first day of a three-day trial"

    The appellate review of an order denying a new trial is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion. ( State v. Campbell, 207 Kan. 152, 483 P.2d 495; State v. Anderson, [ 211 Kan. 148].)'"

  3. State v. Armstrong

    240 Kan. 446 (Kan. 1987)   Cited 22 times
    Looking to defendant’s knowledge of the charges, penalties, and defenses from his previous two trials, at which he was represented by counsel

    The appellate review of an order denying a new trial is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion. (State v. Campbell, 207 Kan. 152, 483 P.2d 495; State v. Anderson, [ 211 Kan. 148].)"'"

  4. State v. Bird

    240 Kan. 288 (Kan. 1986)   Cited 18 times

    The appellate review of an order denying a new trial is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion. ( State v. Campbell, 207 Kan. 152, 483 P.2d 495; State v. Anderson, [ 211 Kan. 148].)'" 237 Kan. at 66. The Hobson court went on to state:

  5. State v. Munyon

    240 Kan. 53 (Kan. 1986)   Cited 7 times

    The appellate review of an order denying a new trial is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion. ( State v. Campbell, 207 Kan. 152, 483 P.2d 495; State v. Anderson, [ 211 Kan. 148].)' p. 471. "These rules have been repeated by the court many times, most recently in State v. Richard, 235 Kan. 355, 363, 681 P.2d 612 (1984).

  6. State v. Ransom

    239 Kan. 594 (Kan. 1986)   Cited 17 times
    In State v. Ransom, 239 Kan. 594, 722 P.2d 540 (1986), and State v. Cabral, 228 Kan. 741, 619 P.2d 1163 (1980), upon which the defendant relies, this court found the factual situations insufficient to satisfy the Buggs test.

    The appellate review of an order denying a new trial is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion. ( State v. Campbell, 207 Kan. 152, 483 P.2d 495; State v. Anderson, [ 211 Kan. 148.])' p. 471. These rules have been repeated by the court many times, most recently in State v. Richard, 235 Kan. 355, 363, 681 P.2d 612 (1984).

  7. State v. Holley

    238 Kan. 501 (Kan. 1986)   Cited 36 times
    In Holley, 238 Kan. at 508-09, Defendant 2 claimed that he was prejudiced because he was tried together with Defendant 1.

    The appellate review of an order denying a new trial is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion. ( State v. Campbell, 207 Kan. 152, 483 P.2d 495; State v. Anderson, [ 211 Kan. 148].)" These rules have been often reiterated by this court, most recently in State v. Hobson, 237 Kan. 64, 697 P.2d 1274 (1985).

  8. State v. Hobson

    697 P.2d 1274 (Kan. 1985)   Cited 6 times

    The appellate review of an order denying a new trial is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion. ( State v. Campbell, 207 Kan. 152, 483 P.2d 495; State v. Anderson, [ 211 Kan. 148].)" p. 471. These rules have been repeated by the court many times, most recently in State v. Richard, 235 Kan. 355, 363, 681 P.2d 612 (1984).

  9. State v. Richard

    235 Kan. 355 (Kan. 1984)   Cited 50 times
    In Richard we also stated `[a] new trial is not granted on the basis of newly discovered evidence which merely tends to impeach or discredit the testimony of a witness.

    The appellate review of an order denying a new trial is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion. ( State v. Campbell, 207 Kan. 152, 483 P.2d 495; State v. Anderson, [ 211 Kan. 148].)'" See also State v. Myrick Nelms, 228 Kan. 406, 423, 616 P.2d 1066 (1980), and cases cited therein; State v. Andrews, 228 Kan. 368, 376-77, 614 P.2d 447 (1980).

  10. State v. Ashworth

    647 P.2d 1281 (Kan. 1982)   Cited 8 times
    In State v. Ashworth, 231 Kan. 623, 647 P.2d 1281 (1982), the jury used a gun and other evidence to reenact the version of the crime as told by the defendant.

    The appellate review of an order denying a new trial is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion. ( State v. Campbell, 207 Kan. 152, 483 P.2d 495; State v. Anderson, supra.)"