DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Ray, 249 So. 2d 540.

43 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Harrison Buckner Doyle La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
    In support, So.2d 540 (1971).
  • State v. Patterson 191 So. 3d 620 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    The State notes that the general rule is that “when a witness other than the defendant is impeached by the admission of a prior inconsistent statement incriminating the defendant, the statement is admissible only on the issue of credibility and not as substantive evidence of the defendant’s guilt.” , (1971).
  • State v. Cobb 144 So. 3d 17 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    art. 607D(2); State v. Cousin, 96-2973 (La.4/14/98)
  • State v. Robert 956 So. 2d 750 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
  • State v. Logan 822 So. 2d 657 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
  • State v. Burbank 811 So. 2d 1112 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
  • State v. Smith 793 So. 2d 1199 La. 2001
  • State v. Laymon 756 So. 2d 1160 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
  • State v. Cousin 710 So. 2d 1065 La. 1998
  • State v. Camp 571 So. 2d 195 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
    1979); , (1971); (La.App.
  • State v. Floyd 544 So. 2d 616 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Lott 535 So. 2d 963 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
  • State v. Brunet 521 So. 2d 594 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    State v. Kaufman, supra; , (1971).
  • State v. Smith 491 So. 2d 641 La. 1986
    1974); , (1971); State v. Willis, 241 La.
  • State v. Sams 487 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • State v. Williams 483 So. 2d 626 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    However, , (1971), the Supreme Court of Louisiana said: “This case exposes the weakness of our procedural rule that allows a defendant to avail himself of the lack of the cautionary instruction, though he remained silent and made no specific request to the trial judge for the instruction.
  • State v. Smith 470 So. 2d 128 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
  • Criticized State v. Felo 454 So. 2d 1150 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • State v. White 450 So. 2d 648 La. 1984
  • State v. Laprime 437 So. 2d 1124 La. 1983
  • State v. Denis 384 So. 2d 419 La. 1980
  • State v. Kimble 375 So. 2d 76 La. 1979
    (1971) this Court recognized that a witness' prior inconsistent statement incriminating the defendant is relevant only to the witness' credibility and is not to be construed as substantive evidence of defendant's guilt.
  • State v. Romero 369 So. 2d 1342 La. 1979
  • State v. Allien 366 So. 2d 1308 La. 1978
    (1971), reaffirmed the rule that prior inconsistent statements are admissible only on the issue of credibility and not as substantive evidence, but concluded, at least for prospective application, that in the absence of a defense request a trial court's failure to give the instruction concerning the li
  • State v. Boyd 359 So. 2d 931 La. 1978
  • Corpus Christi Parish Credit Union v. Martin 358 So. 2d 295 La. 1978
    520 (1863); Lake, Inc. v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., Inc., , (1971); Succession of Lambert, 210 La.
  • Nami v. Peninsular Fire Insurance 355 So. 2d 1036 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    State v. Ray, 1971, , ; State v. Causey, 1972, 261 La.
  • State v. Lovett 345 So. 2d 1139 La. 1977
    We have ultimately determined that we were in error in the statutory construction reached by these decisions, for the reasons to be stated below, and therefore overrule them prospectively, , (1971), as of the date of publication of this opinion in the Southern Reporter.
  • State v. Williams 331 So. 2d 467 La. 1976
  • State v. West 319 So. 2d 901 La. 1975
    (1971), we upheld impeachment by the State of its own witness on the ground that the witness "was evasive and extremely hostile to the prosecution."
  • Pardue v. Johnson 307 So. 2d 682 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    (1971); State v. Bodoin, 153 La.
  • State v. Kaufman 304 So. 2d 300 La. 1974
  • State v. McMellon 295 So. 2d 782 La. 1974
  • State v. Ghoram 290 So. 2d 850 La. 1974
    [*] , (1971); State v. Davidson, 248 La.
  • State v. Gray 286 So. 2d 644 La. 1973
    (1971) and the authorities therein cited.
  • State v. Bell 279 So. 2d 164 La. 1973
    (1971), and a reaffirmation of our holding there is necessary.
  • State v. Kaufman 278 So. 2d 86 La. 1973
    [4] We do not reach the contention that reversible error was committed because the trial court did not, as then required by state law, , (1971), expressly caution the jury that the testimony as to the "white honkys" was supposedly introduced, not for its truth, but just in connection with impeaching the credibility of Delores Williams, the State's witness.
  • State v. Finley 275 So. 2d 762 La. 1973
    (1971); State v. Willis, 241 La.
  • State v. Rossi 273 So. 2d 265 La. 1973
  • State v. Williams 269 So. 2d 232 La. 1972
  • State v. Causey 262 So. 2d 326 La. 1972
    548: “The settled rule in Louisiana is that, when a witness other than the defendant is impeached by the admission of a prior inconsistent statement, the statement is admissible only on the issue of credibility *1080 and not as substantive evidence of the defendant’s guilt.” 1 Regardless of the
  • State Ex Rel. LeBlanc v. Henderson 259 So. 2d 557 La. 1972
    [1] Moreover, I reiterate the view I , (1971), where, for the first time in this Court's history, the power was exercised to overrule a decision in an earlier case wholly prospectively and to completely deny retroactive effect to an overruling decision.
  • State v. Williams 246 So. 2d 4 La. 1971