State v. Radden

Nebraska Supreme Court

State v. Radden

518 N.W.2d 143, 246 Neb. 286, 1994 Neb. LEXIS 149

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1994

DocketNo. S-93-846

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 518 N.W.2d 143 (State v. Radden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Radden, 518 N.W.2d 143, 246 Neb. 286, 1994 Neb. LEXIS 149 (Neb. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

White, J.

This appeal arises from the conviction of appellant, Bryle Edward Radden, for manufacturing a controlled substance: marijuana. Appellant was sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment.

Appellant’s case is indistinguishable from the cases of appellant’s codefendants, Charles Raymond McCormick and David Eugene Hall. The records in all three cases are virtually identical. Specifically, we note that there is no difference between the bills of exceptions and the pleadings and motions filed in each of the three cases. More importantly, the procedural problems discussed in State v. McCormick and Hall, ante p. 271, 518 N.W.2d 133 (1994), are identical to those associated with this appeal. It is therefore unnecessary to restate the relevant facts and analysis in this opinion.

For the reasons set forth in McCormick and Hall, the only proceeding properly before this court for review is the motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence filed by appellant on June 3, 1993. The decision of the district court overruling appellant’s motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Wright, J., not participating.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

White, J.

This appeal arises from the conviction of appellant, Bryle Edward Radden, for manufacturing a controlled substance: marijuana. Appellant was sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment.

Appellant’s case is indistinguishable from the cases of appellant’s codefendants, Charles Raymond McCormick and David Eugene Hall. The records in all three cases are virtually identical. Specifically, we note that there is no difference between the bills of exceptions and the pleadings and motions filed in each of the three cases. More importantly, the procedural problems discussed in State v. McCormick and Hall, ante p. 271, 518 N.W.2d 133 (1994), are identical to those associated with this appeal. It is therefore unnecessary to restate the relevant facts and analysis in this opinion.

For the reasons set forth in McCormick and Hall, the only proceeding properly before this court for review is the motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence filed by appellant on June 3, 1993. The decision of the district court overruling appellant’s motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Wright, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

518 N.W.2d 143, 246 Neb. 286, 1994 Neb. LEXIS 149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-radden-neb-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack