Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Harris, 846 So. 2d 709.

35 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Kenneth Gomila La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
State of Louisiana v. Garrett J. Ward La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
State of Louisiana Versus Sherneskie Bell La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana Versus Sylvester Hayman La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2021
State of Louisiana Versus Teddy Chester La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2021
State of Louisiana Versus Frederick Seymore, Jr. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2020
State of Louisiana Versus Emmett Garrison, IV AKA "Lil Emmet" La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2020
State v. Becnel 250 So. 3d 1207 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
5/20/03), , 713 (citing State v. Mussall , , 1310 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Steve Duane Williams -Aka- Ayaz Sutaria La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
bstance were carried on with secrecy or deviousness, and evidence that the substance was called by the name of the illegal narcotic by the defendant or others in his presence.” ’ ”) (quoting United States v. Scott, 725 F.2d 43, 45-46 (4th Cir.1984) (quoting United States v. Dolan, 544 F.2d 1219, 1221 (4th Cir.1976))); State v. Harris, 02-1589, p. 6 (La.5/20/03), -14 (“The federal courts subscribe generally to the view that the ‘government need not introduce scientific evidence to prove the ident
State of Louisiana v. Larry Broussard, Jr. AKA Larry James Broussard Jr. AKA Larry J, Broussard Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
State v. Harris, 02-1589, p. 4 (La.5/20/03)
State v. Williams 201 So. 3d 379 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
5/20/03), -14 (“The federal courts subscribe generally to the view that the ‘government need not introduce scientific evidence to prove the identity of a substance ...
State v. Broussard 202 So. 3d 506 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Otkins-Victor 193 So. 3d 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
5 Cir. 2/14/12) , , writ denied, 15-0044 (La.5/22/15), ; see also State v. Harris, 02-1589 (La.5/20/03), -13 ; State ex rel.
State v. Alverez 158 So. 3d 142 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 7/23/08), -85 (citing State v. Harris, 2002-1589 (La.5/20/03), ; and State ex rel.
State v. Broome 136 So. 3d 979 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
e that transactions involving the substance were carried on with secrecy or deviousness, and evidence that the substance was called by the name of the illegal narcotic by the defendant or others in his presence.” ’ ”) (quoting United States v. Scott, 725 F.2d 43, 45-46 (4th Cir.1984) (quoting United States v. Dolan, 544 F.2d 1219, 1221 (4th Cir.976))); State v. Harris, 02-1589, p. 6 (La.5/20/03), -14 (“The federal courts subscribe generally to the view that the ‘government need not introduce sci
State v. Khanh Le 131 So. 3d 306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Harris, 02-1589 (La.5/20/03), ().
State v. Smith 130 So. 3d 874 La. 2013
that transactions involving the substance were carried on with secrecy or deviousness, and evidence that the substance was called by the name of the illegal narcotic by the defendant or others in his presence.” ’ ”) (quoting United States v. Scott, 725 F.2d 43, 45-46 (4th Cir.1984) (quoting United States v. Dolan, 544 F.2d 1219, 1221 (4th Cir.1976))); State v. Harris, 02-1589, p. 6 (La.5/20/03), -14 (“The federal courts subscribe generally to the view that the ‘government need not introduce scie
State v. Keys 125 So. 3d 19 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
4 Cir. 7/23/08), -5 (citing State v. Harris, 02-1589 (La.5/20/03), ; and State ex rel.
State v. E.J.M. 119 So. 3d 648 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
5 Cir. 12/27/12), (citing State v. Harris, 02-1589, p. 4 (La.5/20/03), -13 ).
State v. Merrill 105 So. 3d 264 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
17Although scientific evidence that identifies a controlled dangerous substance is beneficial, the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Harris, 02-1589 (La.5/20/03); , specifically held that the lack of scientific evidence does not warrant reversal.
State ex rel. T.E. 91 So. 3d 292 La. 2012
It indicates consciousness of guilt and, therefore, is one of the circumstances from which the jury may infer guilt.”); cf. State v. Harris, 02-1589, p. 6 (La.5/20/03), -14 (state’s inadvertent failure to introduce report of chemical analysis did not require reversal of defendant’s conviction for attempted possession of cocaine: “Identification of a controlled substance does not require direct evidence if available circumstantial evidence establishes its identity beyond a reasona
State v. Massey 91 So. 3d 453 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Harris, 02-1589, p. 4 (La.5/20/03), ().
State of Louisiana v. Ron Stewart Martin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State of Louisiana v. Dexter O'Neil Mayes La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Martin 66 So. 3d 608 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
“[A]n appellate court will not reverse a [factfinder’s] return of a responsive verdict, whether or not supported by the evidence, as long as the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction for the charged offense.” State v. Harris, 02-1589, p. 4 (La.5/20/03), -13 .
State v. Watts 41 So. 3d 625 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Harris, 02-1589, p. 4 (La.5/20/03)
State v. Murphy 28 So. 3d 496 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
as long as there is sufficient lay testimony or circumstantial evidence from which a jury could find that a substance was identified beyond a reasonable doubt, the lack of scientific evidence does not warrant reversal.’ ” State v. Harris, 02-1589, p. 6 (La.5/20/03), (quoting United States v. Sanchez DeFundora, 893 F.2d 1173, 1175 (10th Cir.1990), cert.
State v. Schaller 15 So. 3d 1046 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Harris, 02-1589 (La.5/20/03), -14 , citing United States v. Harrell, 737 F.2d 971, 978 (11th Cir. 1984), cert.
State v. Colbert 990 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
See State v. Harris , XXXX-XXXX (La.5/20/03), ; State ex rel.
State v. Lay 986 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
State of Louisiana v. Archie Louis Carter, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
5/20/03), the State argued that the court of appeal erred in finding that it did not submit sufficient evidence of attempted cocaine possession to support the jury’s verdict.
State v. Carter 981 So. 2d 734 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
In State v. Harris, 02-1589 (La.5/20/03), , the State argued that the court of appeal erred in finding that it did not submit sufficient evidence of attempted cocaine possession to support the jury's verdict.
State of Louisiana v. Kiley M. Williams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
State v. Williams 878 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
See State v. Harris, 02-1589 (La.5/20/03), .
State v. Hartwell 866 So. 2d 899 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
State v. Harris, 02-1589, p. 4 (La.5/20/03), , citing