- Search with
- Parallel SearchEnter a full sentence between 5 and 30 words to find cases with conceptually similar sentences
- or
- Keyword SearchEnter keyword terms, accompanied by optional Boolean connectors
- ANDfraud AND damagesBoth terms in document
- ORcar OR automobileEither term in document
- NOTinfringement NOT patentTerm must not appear in document
- """due diligence"Exact match
- ()appeal AND (verdict OR judgment)Grouping terms
- *withdr*wSingle letter wildcard (withdraw, withdrew)
- !infring!Root expander (infringe, infringed, infringing)
- /ninvestor /5 diligenceTerms within n words of each other
- /sfees /s reasonableTerms within same sentence
- /padmissible /p warrantTerms within the same paragraph
Varney v. State
475 N.W.2d 646 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991)4 Citing cases
Jordan v. State
820 N.W.2d 769 (Iowa Ct. App. 2012) Cited 1 timesNoting PCR proceedings are usually reviewed for errors at law, but, when based upon newly-discovered evidence, are reviewed for abuse of discretion
As a result, if a new trial was granted, Karla's testimony would be inadmissible hearsay and “[t]his evidence, given its greatest possible weight, has impeachment value only.” Varney v. State, 475 N.W.2d 646, 651 (Iowa Ct.App.1991) (denying a new trial based upon testimony of grandparents who overheard one or both grandchildren recant sexual abuse allegations after a trial resulting in conviction). We acknowledge that our court has concluded where “the newly discovered evidence goes directly toward the central issue in the case, it is not impeaching.”
State v. Senseman
720 N.W.2d 192 (Iowa Ct. App. 2006)We conclude the evidence in question does not satisfy the third element necessary for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Varney v. State, 475 N.W.2d 646, 651 (Iowa Ct.App. 1991) (citing Jones v. Scurr, 316 N.W.2d 905, 907 (Iowa 1982)). Second, we give weight to the trial court's findings concerning witness credibility.
Woolison v. State
759 N.W.2d 2 (Iowa 2008)The statements the affidavit attributes to Dylan are inadmissible hearsay and this "evidence, given its greatest possible weight, has impeachment value only. Newly-discovered evidence which is merely cumulative or impeaching does not entitle one to a new trial." Varney v. State, 475 N.W.2d 646, 651 (Iowa Ct.App. 1991). Third, Woolison has failed to prove the newly-discovered evidence "would probably change the result if a new trial is granted."
State v. Jackson
275 Neb. 434 (Neb. 2008) Cited 40 timesConstruing Strickland v. Washington, supra
1996); Gibson v. U.S., 566 A.2d 473 (D.C. 1989); State v. Ferguson, 20 S.W.3d 485 (Mo. 2000); State v. Jensen, 333 N.W.2d 686 (N.D. 1983); State v. Ziebart, 268 Wis. 2d 468, 673 N.W.2d 369 (Wis.App. 2003). See, e.g., Marshall v. State, No. SC05-2379, 2007 WL 4258618 (Fla. Dec. 6, 2007); Raudebaugh v. State, 135 Idaho 602, 21 P.3d 924 (2001); Varney v. State, 475 N.W.2d 646 (Iowa App. 1991); Com. v. Daniels, 445 Mass. 392, 837 N.E.2d 683 (2005) (construing Mass. R. Crim. P. 30(c)) (2006). See, e.g., Ex parte Land, 775 So. 2d 847 (Ala. 2000); Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186 (Del. 1996); Com. v. Carson, 590 Pa. 501, 913 A.2d 220 (2006); Personal Restraint of Gentry, 137 Wash. 2d 378, 972 P.2d 1250 (1999).