DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Raymond, 245 So. 2d 335.

52 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Trae Williams La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2019
    based upon the expedient rule sometimes relied upon in homicide cases that ‘conduct or declarations of the decedent shortly before his killing may sometimes be admissible as tending to show the immediately antecedent circumstances explanatory of the killing and connecting the accused with it.’ ” So.2d 335, 342 (1971) (Tate, J., concurring).
  • State of Louisiana v. Marcus Donte Reed 200 So. 3d 291 La. 2016
  • State v. Magee 103 So. 3d 285 La. 2012
    dmission in this instance is “based upon the expedient rule sometimes relied upon in homicide cases that ‘conduct or declarations of the decedent shortly before his killing may sometimes be admissible as tending to show the immediately antecedent circumstances explanatory of the killing and connecting the accused with it.’ ” , (1971) (Tate, J., concurring).
  • Freeport-McMoran Energy, LLC v. Cedyco Corp. 54 So. 3d 813 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • State v. Parks 2 So. 3d 470 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
  • State v. Leonard 910 So. 2d 977 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
  • State v. Adams 897 So. 2d 629 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    If the wife had told her friend she intended to tell her husband of her intention to leave him the following morning, her out-of-court declaration might have been admissible under [State v.] Raymond[,] [ , , cert.
  • State v. Carter 762 So. 2d 662 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    (1971), appeal dismissed, cert.
  • State v. Brown 562 So. 2d 868 La. 1990
    The State asserted the admissibility of the testimony it sought to elicit as an exception to the hearsay rule because it evinces the victim's state of mind, , (1971), app dis'md & cert.
  • State v. Volquardts 540 So. 2d 497 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • State v. DiLosa 529 So. 2d 14 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
  • State v. Weiland 505 So. 2d 702 La. 1987
    (1971) recognizes that an out-of-court statement offered to prove circumstantially the declarant's emotional attitude toward a defendant is not hearsay, pointing out that this type of evidence is particularly essential in a homicide case where the victim is unavailable to testify.
  • State v. Bolden 501 So. 2d 942 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    (1971); State v. Forbes, 111 La.
  • State v. Feazell 486 So. 2d 327 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    State v. Raymond, 258 La.1, (1971).
  • State v. McKoin 485 So. 2d 215 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    1041 , (1950); , (1971); State v. Fulmer, 263 La.
  • State v. Smith 481 So. 2d 1388 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • State v. Martin 458 So. 2d 454 La. 1984
    [1] After hearing the arguments of counsel outside the presence of the jury the trial court admitted the evidence to show state of mind of the victim, , (1971).
  • State v. Joseph 454 So. 2d 237 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
    ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR NOS. 8 and 10 , (1971), as authority for the admissibility of out-of-court statements to show the declarant's state of mind, the defendant sought to call Davis McDowell *248 as a witness.
  • State v. Armstead 432 So. 2d 837 La. 1983
    (1971), appeal dismissed, cert.
  • State v. Tonubbee 420 So. 2d 126 La. 1982
    appeal dismissed, Ramos v. Louisiana, 404 U.S. 805 , 92 S.Ct.
  • State v. Edwards 420 So. 2d 663 La. 1982
    264 (1909); , (1971); 37 La.L.Rev.
  • State v. Spell 399 So. 2d 551 La. 1981
    (1971); State v. Sheppard, supra .
  • State v. Wilson 360 So. 2d 166 La. 1978
  • State v. Western 355 So. 2d 1314 La. 1978
    State v. Holmes, La., (1974); , (1971).
  • State v. Joya 354 So. 2d 543 La. 1978
  • State v. Mullins 353 So. 2d 243 La. 1977
  • State v. Vinet 352 So. 2d 684 La. 1977
    (1971); State v. Scott, 243 La.
  • State v. Williams 346 So. 2d 181 La. 1977
  • State v. Passman 345 So. 2d 874 La. 1977
    (1971), appeal dismissed, cert.
  • State v. Weedon 342 So. 2d 642 La. 1977
  • State v. Nolan 341 So. 2d 885 La. 1977
    (1971) and State v. *890 Washington, 256 La.
  • State v. Calloway 343 So. 2d 694 La. 1976
    (1971), appeal dismissed, cert.
  • State v. Skelton 340 So. 2d 256 La. 1976
    1040 , (1954); , (1971).
  • State v. Badon 338 So. 2d 665 La. 1976
    (1971), this Court defined the purpose of Article 764 as follows: "The purpose of this Article is to prevent witnesses from being influenced by the testimony of prior witnesses and to strengthen the role of cross-examination in developing the facts."
  • State v. Williams 331 So. 2d 467 La. 1976
    997 , (1972); , (1971); State v. Andrus, 250 La.
  • State v. Batts 324 So. 2d 415 La. 1975
  • State v. Monk 315 So. 2d 727 La. 1975
  • State v. Holmes 305 So. 2d 409 La. 1974
    (1971), appeal dismissed, cert, denied, 404 U.S. 805 , 92 S.Ct.
  • State v. Adams 302 So. 2d 599 La. 1974
    (1971); McCormick on Evidence, ¶ 228 (1954); 6 Wigmore on Evidence ¶ 1715 (3d ed).
  • State v. White 301 So. 2d 321 La. 1974
    (1971); State v. Gonzales, 258 La.
  • State v. Bradford 298 So. 2d 781 La. 1974
    (decided April 29, 1974); , (1971); State v. McAllister, 253 La.
  • State v. Washington 294 So. 2d 794 La. 1974
    State v. Lewis, supra; , (1971); State v. McAllister, 253 La.
  • State v. Washington 294 So. 2d 794 La. 1974
    State v. Lewis, supra; , (1971); State v. McAllister, 253 La.
  • State v. Fallon 290 So. 2d 273 La. 1974
  • State v. Lewis 288 So. 2d 324 La. 1974
    (1971); State v. McAllister, 253 La.
  • State v. Barnard 287 So. 2d 770 La. 1973
  • State v. Green 282 So. 2d 461 La. 1973
    (1971); State v. Davis, 162 La.
  • State v. St. Amand 274 So. 2d 179 La. 1973
    (1971); State v. Reese, 250 La.
  • State v. Curry 270 So. 2d 484 La. 1972
    151 , (1967); , ; State v. Andrus, 250 La.
  • State v. Fulmer 270 So. 2d 116 La. 1972
    Mr. Girod was a , (1971).