Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Stahl, 107 So. 2d 670.

22 citing documents.

State, in Interest of Wright 387 So. 2d 75 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
-675 (La.1958), when the court determined: "As shown by the trial judge's per curiam, the witness was qualified to the judge's satisfaction.
State v. Searle 339 So. 2d 1194 La. 1976
809 , (1964); , (1959); State v. Wren, 121 La.
State v. Sneed 328 So. 2d 126 La. 1976
State v. Sneed 316 So. 2d 372 La. 1975
(1959); State v. Jones, 230 La.
State v. Foy 278 So. 2d 38 La. 1973
356 , (1956); , (1958); State v. McLean, 211 La.
State v. Cryer 263 So. 2d 895 La. 1972
356 , (1956); , (1958); State v. McLean, 211 La.
State v. Anderson 259 So. 2d 310 La. 1972
(1959), we said: “article 333 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [replaced by Arts.
State v. Sinclair 245 So. 2d 365 La. 1971
State v. Washington 236 So. 2d 23 La. 1970
State v. Washington 236 So. 2d 23 La. 1970
State v. Benjamin 222 So. 2d 853 La. 1969
See also, , , and State v. Ross, 217 La.
State v. Benjamin 222 So. 2d 853 La. 1969
195 , , that, where the photographs are admissible, the fact that they are so gruesome that they tend to prejudice the jury is not a valid reason for rejecting them in evidence.” See also, , , and State v. Ross, 217 La.
State v. Cardinale 206 So. 2d 510 La. 1968
we observed: "* * * The rule is well settled that whether a witness is entitled to be heard in the capacity of expert is within the trial judge's province to decide, and his ruling will not be disturbed where no error appears.
State v. Cardinale 206 So. 2d 510 La. 1968
we observed: “ * * * The rule is well settled that whether a witness is entitled to be heard in the capacity of expert is within the trial judge’s province to decide, and his ruling will not be disturbed where no error appears.
State v. Dennis 194 So. 2d 720 La. 1967
State v. White 153 So. 2d 401 La. 1963
238 , ; , ; State v. Davis, 241 La.
State v. Norris 141 So. 2d 368 La. 1962
There was no such reference.” , we discussed the well established jurisprudence with regard to the necessary contents of an opening statement as follows: “Article 333 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires the district attorney to make an opening statement, in which he must explain the nature of the charge and the evidence by whi
State v. Collins 138 So. 2d 546 La. 1962
269 , ; State v. Stahl, *723 , .
State v. Davis 132 So. 2d 866 La. 1961
State v. Eubanks 124 So. 2d 543 La. 1960
State v. Bickham 121 So. 2d 207 La. 1960
672 we said: “Under the well-settled jurisprudence of this court, it is reversible error for the district attorney to call to the attention of the jury, either by direct statement or by plain inference, the fact that the defendant has not testified.
State v. Eyer 110 So. 2d 521 La. 1959