Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Sbisa, 95 So. 2d 619.

13 citing documents.

State v. Jolla 337 So. 2d 197 La. 1976
Before this Court, , (1957) to support his argument.
State v. Monroe 329 So. 2d 193 La. 1976
We need here note only that two of them raise substantial issues of trial conduct which probably will not arise on the re-trial: Bill No. 4, where the trial court sustained an objection to a question attempting to lay a foundation for securing as inconsistent with trial testimony a pretrial statement of the accused, , (1957); Bill No. 5, where the defense was denied an opportunity to inspect (or at least have the trial court inspect in camera) a document used by the witness to refresh his memory
State v. Babin 319 So. 2d 367 La. 1975
For instance, , (1957), a conviction was reversed for failure to order production of such a statement.
State v. Nero 319 So. 2d 303 La. 1975
(1957) relied upon by the defendant.
State v. Gladden 257 So. 2d 388 La. 1972
654 , (1966); , (1957); State v. Weston, 232 La.
State v. Brumfield 229 So. 2d 76 La. 1969
State v. Vernon, 251 La.
State v. Whitfield 219 So. 2d 493 La. 1969
I therefore overrule your objection under the authority of the Spisa [Sbisa] case, and I will permit the statement marked S-12 to be received in evidence.” , , because his per curiam to this bill cites State v. Sbisa, supra, and contains the observation that in such case the conviction was set aside and the defendant discharged and that “the defense attorneys asked for a written report allegedly signed by the witness on the stand to refresh his memory.
State v. Cooper 190 So. 2d 86 La. 1966
766 , (1957); , (1957); Pugh, Production *665 of Documents — Criminal Cases, 18 La.Law Rev. 143 (1957); Note: 18 La.Law Rev. 350 (1958).
State v. Gatlin 129 So. 2d 4 La. 1961
35 , , ) the orders were rendered without comment or discussion anent the power of the Court to acquit defendants on appeal in criminal cases.
State v. Brauner 119 So. 2d 497 La. 1960
(1957).” We find no merit in this contention.
State v. Daniels 109 So. 2d 896 La. 1959
See, also: , , State v. Harrell, 232 La.
State v. Bagneris 110 So. 2d 123 La. 1959
The Court need only recall the cases of: , ; State of Louisiana v. Aaron Harris, Section F. State of Louisiana v. Adolph A. Mayhafer, No. 153-025, Section B. All of the *127 above cases were tried in the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans more than a year prior to the return of the present indictment.
Mayerhafer v. Department of Police, New Orleans 104 So. 2d 163 La. 1958
to hold that there was no probative evidence by which either the appointing authority or the commission could find that the present appellant either knew or should have known of the graft system sporadically maintained in the Third District.