Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Himel, 257 So. 2d 670.
- State v. Ruiz 437 So. 2d 330 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
- State v. Badon 401 So. 2d 1178 La. 1981
- State v. Korman 397 So. 2d 1346 La. 1981
- State v. Nettleton 367 So. 2d 755 La. 1979
- State v. Mitchell 362 So. 2d 501 La. 1978
- State v. Yates 357 So. 2d 541 La. 1978
-
State v. Kinchen
342 So. 2d 174
La. 1977
Art. 769; State v. Sneed, La., (1975); State v. Roquemore, La., (1974); , (1972).
-
State v. Spot
340 So. 2d 1349
La. 1976
Citing cases which had held that in misdemeanor trials an opening statement is not required ( , (1972); State v. Didier, 259 La.
-
State v. Bolen
338 So. 2d 97
La. 1976
(1972); State v. Didier, 259 La.
-
State v. Sneed
316 So. 2d 372
La. 1975
art. 769, Official Revision Comment; , (1972); State v. Kreller, 255 La.
- State v. Layssard 310 So. 2d 107 La. 1975
- State v. Bell 268 So. 2d 610 La. 1972
-
State v. Cleary
263 So. 2d 882
La. 1972
(1972), upon which this decision rests was.rendered by a divided court and should be reconsidered.
-
State v. Dobard
263 So. 2d 16
La. 1972
“If the state offers evidence that was inadvertently and in good faith omitted from the opening statement, the court, in its discretion may admit the evidence if it finds that the defendant is not taken by surprise or prejudiced in the preparation of his defense.” , (1972), we said: “After a thorough study of the purpose of the opening statement at common law and under statutes of other states, and after research and study of the origin and development of our present codal provision and the Loui