Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Stokes, 195 So. 2d 267.

23 citing documents.

State v. Brown 370 So. 2d 547 La. 1979
533 , (1969), this court, in discussing the problem of relevancy, made the following observation: " , (1967) when evidence is proffered and a dispute arises concerning its relevancy, the court should determine whether there is a logical or rational connection between the fact which is sought to be proved and the fact which is at issue in the case.
State v. Skelton 340 So. 2d 256 La. 1976
976 , (1968); , (1967)."
State v. Sharp 338 So. 2d 654 La. 1976
976 , (1968); , (1967)."
State v. Walker 328 So. 2d 87 La. 1976
The fact that defendant was also identified by Patrolman Loper independent of the clothes defendant was wearing does not make the clothes themselves irrelevant because, , (1967), "(t)he evidentiary fact offered `does not need to have strong, full, superlative, probative value * * * or to produce persuasion by its sole and intrinsic force, but merely to be worth consideration by the jury * * *'."
State v. Shelby 308 So. 2d 279 La. 1975
State v. Landrum 307 So. 2d 345 La. 1975
2d 512 (1968); , (1967)."
State v. Freeman 306 So. 2d 703 La. 1975
533 , (1969), , (1967), for the following proposition: ...
State v. Frierson 302 So. 2d 605 La. 1974
765 , (1967); , (1967); State v. Turner, 248 La.
State v. Courtney 296 So. 2d 807 La. 1974
City of Baton Rouge v. Norman 290 So. 2d 865 La. 1974
1461 (1931); , (1967); 16 Am.Jur.2d, Constitutional Law, ¶ 131.
State v. Gilbert 286 So. 2d 345 La. 1973
State v. Smith 283 So. 2d 470 La. 1973
State v. Plummer 281 So. 2d 716 La. 1973
State v. Landry 262 So. 2d 360 La. 1972
State v. Anderson 259 So. 2d 310 La. 1972
(1967).” State v. Wright, 254 La.
State v. Williams 258 So. 2d 539 La. 1972
945 , (1950); , (1967); State v. Ponthieux, 254 La.
State v. Dillon 255 So. 2d 745 La. 1971
State v. McQueen 243 So. 2d 798 La. 1971
(1967).” State v. Wright, 254 La.
State v. Wright 225 So. 2d 201 La. 1969
State v. Giles 218 So. 2d 585 La. 1969
“Facts necessary to be known to explain a relevant fact, or which support an inference raised by such fact, are admissible.” , (1967) when evidence is proffered and a. dispute arises concerning its relevancy, the court should determine whether there is a logical or rational connection between the fact which is sought to be proved and the fact which is at issue in the case.
State v. Singleton 215 So. 2d 512 La. 1968
State v. Pebworth, 251 La.
State v. Comeaux 211 So. 2d 620 La. 1968
State v. Andrus 199 So. 2d 867 La. 1967