Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Kennedy, 957 So. 2d 757.

35 citing documents.

State Of Louisiana in the Interest of D.W. La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2022
5/22/07), -76, rev'd, 554 U.S. 407, 128 S.Ct.
State v. Hunter 252 So. 3d 1053 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
5/22/07), , 773, cert granted , 552 U.S. 1087 , 128 S.Ct.
State v. White 243 So. 3d 12 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
5/22/07), , 775-78, rev'd on other grounds, 554 U.S. 407 , 128 S.Ct.
State v. Thibodeaux 227 So. 3d 811 La. 2017
5/22/07), , rev’d on other grounds, 554 U.S. 407 , 128 S.Ct.
State v. Eley 203 So. 3d 462 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
5/22/07), -78 , rev’d on other grounds, 554 U.S. 407 , 128 S.Ct.
State v. Johnson 196 So. 3d 26 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
1930 , 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970); State v. Kennedy, 2005-1981 (La.5/22/07), , rev’d in part on other grounds, Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 , 128 S.Ct.
State v. Jones 182 So. 3d 251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See State v. Kennedy, 05-1981, p. 26 (La.5/22/07), (holding—in a case where the video- statement of a protected person was admitted pursuant to La.
State v. Greenberry 154 So. 3d 700 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Moreover, in State v. Kennedy, 05-1981 (La.5/22/07), , the ^defendant argued that the prosecution made inappropriate comments during closing: (1) asking the jury to convict the defendant to protect the victim, and (2) calling the defendant a monster.
State v. Graham 148 So. 3d 601 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
The trial court overruled the defense objection, noting that under State v. Kennedy, 05-1981 (La.5/22/07), , rev’d on other grounds, 554 U.S. 407 , 128 S.Ct.
State of Louisiana v. Daniel Joseph Harmon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
5/22/07), reversed in part on other grounds, Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407, 128 S.Ct.
State v. Harmon 139 So. 3d 1195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
1930 , 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970); State v. Kennedy, 05-1981 (La.5/22/07), , reversed in part on other grounds, Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 , 128 S.Ct.
State of Louisiana v. Thomas Kirk Gaton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
5/22/07), reversed on other grounds, 554 U.S. 407, 128 S.Ct.
State v. Vallo 117 So. 3d 268 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Kennedy, 05-1981 (La.5/22/07), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Calvin Charles Barfield La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
5/22/07), -76, reversed in part on other grounds, 554 U.S. 407, 128 S.Ct.
State v. Barfield 81 So. 3d 760 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Kennedy, 05-1981, pp. 25-26 (La.5/22/07), -76 , reversed in part on other grounds, 554 U.S. 407 , 128 S.Ct.
State v. Hawkins 78 So. 3d 293 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
The court also noted that the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Kennedy, 2005-1981 (La.5/22/07), , concluded that where the de-clarant is present to appear for cross-examination, the Confrontation Clause places no constraints at all on the use of the declarant’s prior testimonial statements.
State v. Dukes 57 So. 3d 489 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
1930 , 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970); State v. Kennedy, 2005-1981 (La.5/22/07), , reversed in part on other grounds, Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 , 128 S.Ct.
State of Louisiana v. David G. Sarpy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
5/22/07), reversed on other grounds sub nom.
State v. Sarpy 52 So. 3d 1032 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
| |SWe further observe that in State v. Kennedy, 05-1981 (La.5/22/07), , reversed on other grounds sub nom.
State v. Richards 47 So. 3d 598 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
In State v. Kennedy, 2005-1981 (La.5/22/07), , the Louisiana Supreme Court explained the significance of Crawford as follows: Traditionally, for purposes of the Confrontation Clause, all hearsay statements were admissible if (1) the declarant was unavailable to testify, and (2) the statement fell under a "firmly rooted hearsay exception” or bore "particularized
State v. Stewart 46 So. 3d 714 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
1930 , 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970); State v. Kennedy, 2005-1981 (La.05/22/07), , reversed in part on other grounds, Kennedy v, Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 , 128 S.Ct.
In the Matter of State Ex Rel. Lw 40 So. 3d 1220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
In State v. Kennedy, XXXX-XXXX (La.5/22/07), , rev'd on other grounds, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct.
State ex rel. L.W. 40 So. 3d 1220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
In State v. Kennedy, 2005-1981 (La.5/22/07), , rev’d on other grounds, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct.
State v. Carper 41 So. 3d 605 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
1930 , 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970); State v. Kennedy, 2005-1981 (La.5/22/07), , reversed in part on other grounds, Kennedy v. Louisiana, - U.S. - , 128 S.Ct.
State v. Honore 31 So. 3d 485 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Slate v. Kennedy, 05-1981 (La.5/22/07), .
State v. Williams 28 So. 3d 357 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
art. 801(D)(1)(d) “reflects a longstanding jurisprudential rule exempting the initial report of a child rape victim from the hearsay rule.” State v. Kennedy, 05-1981 (La.5/22/07), , rev’d on other grounds, — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct.
State of Louisiana v. Michael W. Smith La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
5/22/07), 3 In the second inquiry, the restraint on freedom of movement should be of the degree associated with a formal arrest.
State v. Smith 2 So. 3d 1187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
would gauge the breadth of his freedom of action.” State v. Kennedy, 05-1981, p. 50 (La.5/22/07), .
Wyatt v. Hendrix 998 So. 2d 233 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
See, State v. Kennedy, XXXX-XXXX (La.5/22/07), , rev'd on other grounds by Kennedy v. Louisiana, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct.
State v. Borden 986 So. 2d 158 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
[15] 05-1981 (La.5/22/07), , cert.
State v. Williams 974 So. 2d 157 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
The Louisiana Supreme Court explained the test for admissibility for expert testimony at trial and the standard of review on appeal in State v. Kennedy, 05-1981 (La.5/22/07), , fn.
State v. Gann 969 So. 2d 690 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
State v. Kennedy, 05-1981, p. 24 (La.5/22/07)
State of Louisiana v. Brian Gann La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
State v. Roberts 966 So. 2d 111 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
We note that, in State v. Kennedy, 05-1981 (La.5/22/07), , the Louisiana Supreme Court recently concluded that, where the declarant is present to appear for cross-examination, "the Confrontation Clause places no constraints at all on the use of his prior testimonial statements."
State v. Wilhite 961 So. 2d 565 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
n the purpose of the legislation is to facilitate prosecution of offenders who have committed crimes of violence against children “with a minimum of additional intrusion into -the lives of such children.” The statute authorizes videotaping the statements of such victims and introducing the statements at trial “as an exception to the hearsay rule.” State v. Kennedy, 2005-1981, p. 12 (La.05/22/07), ; La.