Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Murphy, 102 So. 2d 61.
-
Jenkins v. Baldwin
801 So. 2d 485
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
276 ; , , certiorari denied 357 U.S. 930 , 78 S.Ct.
-
State v. Bennett
517 So. 2d 1115
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
2d 358 (La.1982); , cert.
- State v. Paciera 290 So. 2d 681 La. 1974
-
State v. Blankenship
277 So. 2d 639
La. 1973
2d 763 (1965); , (1957).
-
State v. Johnson
268 So. 2d 620
La. 1972
(1968); State v. Square, 257 La.
-
State v. Robinson
267 So. 2d 182
La. 1972
15:441; State *30 v. Murphy, , (1955).
- State v. Cripps 250 So. 2d 382 La. 1971
-
State v. Elie
241 So. 2d 515
La. 1970
“For examples of the cases, , (1958), cert.
-
State v. Marks
211 So. 2d 261
La. 1968
276 ; , , cert, denied, 357 U.S. 930 , 78 S.Ct.
-
State v. Iverson
204 So. 2d 772
La. 1967
See, e. g., , ; State v. Labry, 124 La.
-
State v. Carter
181 So. 2d 763
La. 1966
relied upon by the trial judge in making his ruling, and which is to the effect that a trial judge must be accorded wide discretion to determine whether particular evidence sought to be introduced in a criminal prosecution is relevant to the case.
- State v. Clifton 172 So. 2d 657 La. 1965
- State v. Clifton 172 So. 2d 657 La. 1965
-
State v. Rideau
137 So. 2d 283
La. 1962
451 , ; , , certiorari denied 357 U.S. 930 , 78 S.Ct.
-
State v. Brown
136 So. 2d 394
La. 1962
“ ‘A trial judge must be accorded a wide discretion to determine whether particular evidence sought to be introduced in criminal prosecution is relevant to case.’ , .
-
State v. Jenkins
107 So. 2d 632
La. 1958
276 ; , , certiorari denied 357 U.S. 930 , 78 S.Ct.
-
State v. Rue
107 So. 2d 702
La. 1958
300 , ; , ), the uneontradicted testimony taken concerning this point, as the trial court stated in his Per Curiam, “shows that the drawing from the jury wheel was strictly according to law.” (Tr-43.)
-
State v. Fletcher
106 So. 2d 709
La. 1958
13:1382, , , where the same points were raised and decided adversely to appellant.
-
State v. Egana
102 So. 2d 66
La. 1957
Being found guilty on the second count of receiving stolen things valued at $75 and sentenced to serve one year at hard labor in the State penitentiary, he prosecuted this appeal, relying on four bills of exceptions reserved by him during the trial, , .