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. Tharp, 284 So. 2d 536.

33 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. William Felix Vail La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
    the defendant was convicted of murder and sentenced to death.
  • State v. Vail 236 So. 3d 644 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    344 , (1972), overruled on other grounds by State v. Tharp , the defendant was convicted of murder and sentenced to death.
  • State of Louisiana v. Bengy R. Cooley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    344, (1972), the supreme court found the trial did not err in denying a motion for directed verdict of acquittal based on the fact that the indictment charged the defendant with committing murder on January 14, 1970, and the coroner‟s report showed the victim died o
  • State v. Cooley 165 So. 3d 1237 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    344 , (1972), the supreme court found the trial did not err in denying a *1256 motion for directed verdict of acquittal based on the fact that the indictment charged the defendant with committing murder on January 14, 1970, and the coroner’s report showed the victim died
  • State v. Campbell 566 So. 2d 1038 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
  • State v. Duncan 517 So. 2d 1270 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Guillory 502 So. 2d 258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    15:279; ” This assignment of error is also without merit.
  • State v. Montgomery 499 So. 2d 709 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
  • State v. Hookfin 476 So. 2d 481 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    *492 However, certain safeguards should be retained in the process of refreshing recollection.
  • State v. Lucky 453 So. 2d 1234 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    A trial judge should require production of a police report for defendant's inspection when (1) an officer's testimony at trial is from his report rather than his memory, that is, if the testimony is the product of past recollection recorded rather than present memory refreshed, and (2) when a witness has referred to his report or notes, while he is on the stand, even though presumably only to refresh his memory while testifying.
  • State v. Riley 451 So. 2d 15 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    It was reversible error, to refuse production of the report or “piece of paper ...
  • Landry v. Bill Garrett Chevrolet, Inc. 430 So. 2d 1051 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
  • State v. Gremillion 428 So. 2d 940 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Kimble 407 So. 2d 693 La. 1981
  • State v. Griffon 406 So. 2d 1351 La. 1981
    Dennis v. U. S., 384 U.S. 855 , 86 S.Ct.
  • State v. Tauzier 397 So. 2d 494 La. 1981
  • State v. Valentine 375 So. 2d 1378 La. 1979
  • State v. Hawthorne 364 So. 2d 917 La. 1978
  • State v. Franks 363 So. 2d 518 La. 1978
  • Distinguished State v. Taylor 363 So. 2d 699 La. 1978
    (on rehearing), as authority for the contrary conclusion.
  • State v. Jolla 337 So. 2d 197 La. 1976
    State v. Perkins, La., (1975); State v. Lane, La., (1974); State v. Tharp, La., (1973).
  • State v. Monroe 329 So. 2d 193 La. 1976
    In arguing to this Court that the judge's refusal to grant his motion was error
  • State v. Singleton 321 So. 2d 509 La. 1975
    as authority for his request for "any memoranda, reports, etc." made by Officer Gros as a result of his investigation.
  • State v. Babin 319 So. 2d 367 La. 1975
    *377 State v. Grayson, 225 La.
  • State v. Whitehurst 319 So. 2d 907 La. 1975
    because he was testifying from "past recollection recorded."
  • State v. Nero 319 So. 2d 303 La. 1975
    Compare State v. Perkins, *308 La., (1975); State v. Tharp, La., (1973).
  • State v. Dupuy 319 So. 2d 294 La. 1975
  • State v. Kuykendall 319 So. 2d 326 La. 1975
    (1973); State v. Franklin, 263 La.
  • State v. Foret 315 So. 2d 278 La. 1975
    (wherein it was held that the defendant was entitled to a copy of the report—past recollection recorded) (La.
  • State v. Perkins 310 So. 2d 591 La. 1975
  • Distinguished State v. Lane 302 So. 2d 880 La. 1974
  • State v. Payton 294 So. 2d 211 La. 1974
    I cannot see how the administration of justice would be thereby prejudiced—to the contrary, the fine line between "refreshing memory" and "past recollection recorded", should be subject to judicial scrutiny rather than based upon the ex parte determination of the testifying witness himself.
  • State v. Stephenson 291 So. 2d 767 La. 1974
    State v. Dimopoullas, 260 La.