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.
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].)'"
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].)"'"
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:
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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.)"