State v. Rodosta

Louisiana Court of Appeal

State v. Rodosta

438 So. 2d 1165, 1983 La. App. LEXIS 9406

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedOctober 11, 1983

DocketNo. 83 KM 0767-68

StatusPublished

This text of 438 So. 2d 1165 (State v. Rodosta) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Rodosta, 438 So. 2d 1165, 1983 La. App. LEXIS 9406 (La. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

During the pendency of the appeals lodged in this Court, defendants re-urged their motion for a new trial. The previous motion for a new trial was denied after a hearing by the trial court. The instant motion has been timely filed based upon allegations of new and material evidence that, notwithstanding the exercise of reasonable diligence by the defendants, was not discovered before or during the trial, which evidence if available, allegedly would probably have changed the verdict of guilty. La.Code Crim.P. Art. 851.

On July 7, 1983, this court issued a Show Cause Order as to why these appeals should not be remanded for a new trial hearing. No response has been made by the State, and thus we must assume the defendants’ motion is not opposed.

Therefore, we remand these cases to the trial court for a hearing on defendants’ motion for a new trial. La.Code Crim.P. Art. 853. State v. Spell, 388 So.2d 754 (La.1980).

REMANDED TO DISTRICT COURT.

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

PER CURIAM.

During the pendency of the appeals lodged in this Court, defendants re-urged their motion for a new trial. The previous motion for a new trial was denied after a hearing by the trial court. The instant motion has been timely filed based upon allegations of new and material evidence that, notwithstanding the exercise of reasonable diligence by the defendants, was not discovered before or during the trial, which evidence if available, allegedly would probably have changed the verdict of guilty. La.Code Crim.P. Art. 851.

On July 7, 1983, this court issued a Show Cause Order as to why these appeals should not be remanded for a new trial hearing. No response has been made by the State, and thus we must assume the defendants’ motion is not opposed.

Therefore, we remand these cases to the trial court for a hearing on defendants’ motion for a new trial. La.Code Crim.P. Art. 853. State v. Spell, 388 So.2d 754 (La.1980).

REMANDED TO DISTRICT COURT.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

438 So. 2d 1165, 1983 La. App. LEXIS 9406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rodosta-lactapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack