DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Watson, 900 So. 2d 325.

15 citing documents.

  • State v. Dock 167 So. 3d 1097 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    writ denied, State v. Watson, 39,362 (La.App.2d Cir.4/20/05), .
  • State of Louisiana v. Walter Urena La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    2 Cir. 4/20/05), State v. Hotoph, 99-243 (La.App.
  • State v. Urena 161 So. 3d 701 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    2 Cir. 4/20/05), ; State v. Hotoph, 99-243 (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. Nelson Chambers La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    2 Cir. 4/20/05), State v. Hotoph, 99-243 (La.App.
  • State v. Vallo 117 So. 3d 268 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    For example, see State v. Watson, 39,-362 (La.App.2d Cir.4/20/05), .
  • State of Louisiana v. Rosheed Guillory La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    2 Cir. 4/20/05), State v. Hotoph, 99-243 (La.App.
  • State v. Guillory 129 So. 3d 108 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    2 Cir. 4/20/05), ; State v. Hotoph, 99-243 (La.App.
  • State v. Terry 108 So. 3d 126 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    14:81.2; State v. Watson, *143 39,362 (La.App.2d Cir.4/20/05), ; State v. Elzie, 37,920 (La.App.2d Cir.1/28/04), , writ denied, 04-2289 (La.2/04/05), .
  • State v. Carper 107 So. 3d 118 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    This court, in State v. Watson, 39,362 (La.App.2d Cir.04/20/05), , explained that some leading questions do not render such videotapes inadmissible under these statutes, (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. C. S. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    2 Cir. 4/20/05), State v. Hotoph, 99-243 (La.App.
  • State v. C.S. 50 So. 3d 983 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    2 Cir. 4/20/05), ; State v. Hotoph, 99-243 (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. B. M. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    2 Cir. 4/20/05), State v. Hotoph, 99-243 (La.App.
  • State v. Thomas 36 So. 3d 1178 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    It is not erroneous for a trial court to admit into evidence the videotaped interview of a child, in spite of leading questions by the interviewer, “when the questions were for clarification purposes and were appropriate under the circumstances.” State v. Roberts, supra; State v. Watson, 39,362 (La.App.2d Cir.4/20/05), .
  • State v. Roberts 966 So. 2d 111 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    2d Cir.4/20/05), , this court explained that some leading questions do not render such video tapes inadmissible under these statutes: With regard to leading questions, (La.App.
  • State v. Houston 925 So. 2d 690 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006