Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Harris, 627 So. 2d 788.

20 citing documents.

State v. Berry 221 So. 3d 967 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
State v. Hartford 162 So. 3d 1202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. KHALFANI 998 So. 2d 756 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
2d Cir.4/5/95), , writ denied, 95-1151 (La.9/29/95), ; (La.App.
State v. Booker 968 So. 2d 1190 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
art. 814(C); State v. George, 26,867 (La.App.2d Cir.4/5/95), , writ denied, 95-1151 (La.9/29/95), ; (La.App.
State v. Persley 918 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
State v. Richard 902 So. 2d 1271 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
State v. Loyden 899 So. 2d 166 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
2 Cir. 12/15/00), ( (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Booker Earl Loyden La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
2 Cir. 12/15/00), ( (La.App.
State v. James 873 So. 2d 858 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
State v. Glosson 843 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
State v. Taylor 821 So. 2d 633 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
State v. Taylor 774 So. 2d 379 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
State v. Coleman 756 So. 2d 1218 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
State v. McKnight 739 So. 2d 343 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
State v. Shields 760 So. 2d 353 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
“The victim simply cannot tell us a more narrow scope than the period of time that we have given to the defendant.” A trial court is vested with “wide discretion” in determining the sufficiency of the state’s answer to bills of particular, “and its ruling will not be disturbed unless a clear abuse of that discretion is shown.” , (La.App.
State v. Taylor 709 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
State v. Warren 700 So. 2d 1297 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
4th Cir. 1990), writ denied in part, writ not considered in part, (La.App.
State v. Alford 694 So. 2d 1162 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
State v. George 652 So. 2d 1382 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
State v. Mathis 649 So. 2d 92 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995