Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Fink, 231 So. 2d 360.

40 citing documents.

State v. Thompkins 273 So. 3d 346 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
art. 841 ; , , 365 (1970) ; State v. Washington, 225 La.
State v. Hutsell 241 So. 3d 542 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2018
In State v. Fink , , 396, , 365 (1970), the court explained: Such an objection [failure of the judge to give a special charge] must be made at the time the general charge is given, so that the trial judge will have an opportunity to change, explain, or correct the charge.
State v. Roux 487 So. 2d 1226 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
(1970), if a witness has been accepted as an expert and has begun to testify on direct examination before the jury, the competence of the witness cannot be reopened.
State v. Russell 416 So. 2d 1283 La. 1982
State v. Vaccaro 411 So. 2d 415 La. 1982
State *425 v. Fink, , (1970).
State v. Rogers 375 So. 2d 1304 La. 1979
State v. Labostrie 358 So. 2d 1243 La. 1978
State v. Qualls 353 So. 2d 978 La. 1977
State v. Rittiner 341 So. 2d 307 La. 1977
State v. Glover 343 So. 2d 118 La. 1977
State v. Miles 339 So. 2d 735 La. 1976
(1970), where defendant moved for a mistrial because in the opening statement the district attorney referred to a conversation in which arrangements to purchase contraband were made without having given prior written notice as required by Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 768, the Court stat
State v. Marmillion 339 So. 2d 788 La. 1976
(1970), we held that when the defense failed to request a special charge on entrapment, objection to the failure to charge entrapment could not be raised for the first time on a motion for a new trial.
State v. Davis 336 So. 2d 805 La. 1976
State v. Brumfield 329 So. 2d 181 La. 1976
State v. Williams 326 So. 2d 815 La. 1976
385 , (1970), an inculpatory statement was defined as follows: "As used in Article 768, the term inculpatory statement refers to the out-ofcourt admission of incriminating facts made by a defendant after the crime has been committed.
State v. Calloway 324 So. 2d 801 La. 1976
State v. Sneed 328 So. 2d 126 La. 1976
State v. McKinnon 317 So. 2d 184 La. 1975
State v. Beard 312 So. 2d 278 La. 1975
Art. 841, C.Cr.P.; (1973); , (1970).
State v. Wells 306 So. 2d 695 La. 1975
462 , (1972); , (1970); 31 La.L.Rev.
State v. LeBlanc 305 So. 2d 416 La. 1974
It relates to past events.” , (1970).
State v. Gaspard 301 So. 2d 344 La. 1974
State v. Walker 296 So. 2d 310 La. 1974
See State v. Neal, La., (1973); State v. Chaney, La., (1973); , (1970); State v. Bird, 38 La.
State v. Brown 288 So. 2d 339 La. 1974
(1970), a case involving distribution of marijuana, we held sufficient a bill of particulars stating the type of drug, the time of the sale, and the name of the agents who purchased it.
State v. Barnard 287 So. 2d 770 La. 1973
(1970); State v. Barnes, 257 La.
State v. Bendo 281 So. 2d 106 La. 1973
(1970) in which this court held that a "confession" or "inculpatory statement" as envisioned by La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Chaney 273 So. 2d 259 La. 1973
(1970): "Such an objection must be made at the time the general charge is given, so that the trial judge will have an opportunity to change, explain, or correct the charge.
State v. Curry 270 So. 2d 484 La. 1972
(1970), where a conversation which led to the purchase of marijuana was at issue.
State v. Lonigan 269 So. 2d 816 La. 1972
State v. Johnson 268 So. 2d 620 La. 1972
It relates to past events.” , (1970).
State v. Jones 267 So. 2d 559 La. 1972
State v. Crockett 263 So. 2d 6 La. 1972
(1970), this Court held that the term “inculpatory statement,” as used in La.
State v. Morris 262 So. 2d 324 La. 1972
State v. Lee 259 So. 2d 334 La. 1972
1094 , -153 ), and that conviction by a non-unanimous jury should be set aside ( , ), have been rejected by this court.
State v. Jackson 256 So. 2d 627 La. 1972
State v. Jackson 254 So. 2d 259 La. 1971
999 , (1969); State v. Johnson, supra; , (1970); State v. Caston, 256 La.
State v. Rutledge 250 So. 2d 734 La. 1971
State v. Rutledge 250 So. 2d 734 La. 1971
It relates to past events.” , (1970).
State v. Davis 249 So. 2d 193 La. 1971
Art. 362 afforded him a post-conviction remedy for an out-of-time appeal, (since the defendant had been denied an effective appeal through the failure of appointed counsel to perfect it).
State v. Coney 246 So. 2d 793 La. 1971