Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Lewis, 108 So. 2d 93.

17 citing documents.

State v. Davis 818 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Brady, 381 *83 So.2d at 822 ; -126 (La.1975); , (1959).
State v. Dugar 643 So. 2d 870 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
State v. Holland 544 So. 2d 461 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
State v. Ashworth 469 So. 2d 1198 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Cannon 441 So. 2d 1259 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Hillard 421 So. 2d 220 La. 1982
(1959); State v. Jackson, 227 La.
State v. Brady 381 So. 2d 819 La. 1980
(La.1979); State v. Robinson, supra
State v. Henson 351 So. 2d 1169 La. 1977
State v. Williams 343 So. 2d 1026 La. 1977
State v. Robinson 337 So. 2d 1168 La. 1976
1080 , (1972); , (1959); State v. Elias, 229 La.
State in Interest of Williams 325 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
*856 , (1959) as follows: "Although the testimony of an accomplice, even though uncorroborated, is competent evidence, it is well settled that such evidence is subject to suspicion and should be received and acted upon with extreme or at least grave caution.
State v. Guidry 319 So. 2d 415 La. 1975
1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); , (1959); State v. Elias, 229 La.
State v. Senegal 316 So. 2d 124 La. 1975
State v. Hamilton 312 So. 2d 656 La. 1975
(1959); State v. Matassa, 222 La.
State v. Gaspard 301 So. 2d 344 La. 1974
State v. Brown 288 So. 2d 339 La. 1974
15:492 , (1959) for his argument that the Court erred in not allowing the questions.
State v. Beach 279 So. 2d 657 La. 1973
(1959), relied upon by defendant, is inapposite.