Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Progue, 144 So. 2d 352.

27 citing documents.

State v. Issac 527 So. 2d 1045 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
679 , ; , ; 2 Wharton's Criminal Evidence (12th ed.), § 673, p. 617.
State v. McGraw 366 So. 2d 1278 La. 1979
592 , (1967); , (1962); State v. Labat, 226 La.
State v. Tennant 352 So. 2d 629 La. 1977
1306 , 10 L.Ed.2d 416 (1963); , (1962); State v. Faciane, 233 La.
State v. Bryant 351 So. 2d 1188 La. 1977
679 , ; , ; 2 Wharton's Criminal Evidence (12th ed.), § 673, p. 617."
State v. Forbes 348 So. 2d 983 La. 1977
679 , ; , ; 2 Wharton's Criminal Evidence (12th ed.), § 673, p. 617."
State v. Francis 345 So. 2d 1120 La. 1977
679 , ; , ; 2 Wharton's Criminal Evidence (12th ed.), § 673, p. 617."
State v. Lockett 332 So. 2d 443 La. 1976
679 , ; , ; 2 Wharton's Criminal Evidence (12th ed.), § 673, p. 617."
State v. Demery 324 So. 2d 418 La. 1975
679 , ; , ; 2 Wharton’s Criminal Evidence (12th Ed.), § 673, p. 617.” Under these principles, the foundation as to each of the items was adequate for.admission.
State v. Batiste 318 So. 2d 27 La. 1975
679 , ; , ; 2 Wharton's Criminal Evidence (12th ed.), § 673, p. 617.
State v. Nance 315 So. 2d 695 La. 1975
679 , ; , ; 2 Wharton's Criminal Evidence (12th ed.), § 673, p. 617."
State v. Mitchell 311 So. 2d 888 La. 1975
679 , ; , ; 2 Wharton's Criminal Evidence (12th Ed.), § 673, p. 617."
State v. Hayes 306 So. 2d 705 La. 1975
679 , (1969); , (1962); 2 Wharton's Criminal Evidence (12th ed.), § 673, p. 617.
State v. Freeman 306 So. 2d 703 La. 1975
*705 679, ; , ; 2 Wharton's Criminal Evidence (12th ed.), § 673, p. 617.
State v. Adams 302 So. 2d 599 La. 1974
679 , ; , ; 2 Wharton's Criminal Evidence (12th ed.), § 673, p. 617."
State v. Flood 301 So. 2d 637 La. 1974
679 , ; , ; 2 Wharton's Criminal Evidence (12th ed.), § 673, p. 617."
State v. Frierson 302 So. 2d 605 La. 1974
200 , (1968); , (1962); State v. Wittmers, 167 La.
State v. Adams 296 So. 2d 278 La. 1974
State v. Asher 294 So. 2d 223 La. 1974
679 , ; , ; 2 Wharton's Criminal Evidence (12th ed.), § 673, p. 617."
State v. Ross 268 So. 2d 222 La. 1972
State v. Nelson 259 So. 2d 46 La. 1972
679 , (1969); , (1962); 2 Wharton’s Criminal Evidence (12th ed.), § 673, p. 617.
State v. Anderson 259 So. 2d 310 La. 1972
See, , ; State v. Robertson, 258 La.
State v. Bonner 210 So. 2d 319 La. 1968
we held that the mere assertion that defenses in a joint trial were antagonistic, without a presentation of facts to actually show that such existed, is not sufficient to require a severance.
State v. Page 206 So. 2d 503 La. 1968
1306 , 10 L.Ed.2d 416 ; , ; and State v. Faciane, 233 La.
State v. Page 206 So. 2d 503 La. 1968
1306 , 10 L.Ed.2d 416 ; , ; and State v. Faciane, 233 La.
State v. Hopper 203 So. 2d 222 La. 1967
State v. Williams 193 So. 2d 787 La. 1967
State v. MacK 144 So. 2d 363 La. 1962
“Persons jointly indicted shall be jointly tried, unless the district attorney elect to place such persons separately upon trial, ■ or unless the court, upon motion of defendant, shall, after a hearing contradictorily with the district attorney, order a severance.” The identical question raised by this motion was answered adversely to the position of the defendants in State v. Prague et al., La., , No. 45,982 on the Docket- of' this Court handed down June 29, 1962.