Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Smith, 285 So. 2d 240.

40 citing documents.

State v. McCullough 774 So. 2d 1105 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
State v. Etienne 649 So. 2d 1230 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
See, C. McCormick, Evidence, § 297 at 705, et seq.
State v. Brown 618 So. 2d 629 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
Buckbee v. United Gas Pipe Line Co. Inc. 561 So. 2d 76 La. 1990
State v. Jones 558 So. 2d 546 La. 1990
State v. Adams 550 So. 2d 595 La. 1989
Ellis v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. 550 So. 2d 1310 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
however, the Louisiana Supreme Court made clear that above and beyond prior case holdings and specific statutes, Louisiana generally followed the "traditional hearsay exceptions."
State v. Leonard 543 So. 2d 975 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Smith, supra [ ]; see, C. McCormick, Evidence, § 297 at 704 (2d ed.1972).
State v. Grant 517 So. 2d 1151 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
State v. Lingle 514 So. 2d 171 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Narcisse 512 So. 2d 565 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Allen v. Burrow 505 So. 2d 880 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State v. Burns 504 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
See, C. McCormick, Evidence, § 297 at 705, et seq.
State v. Yochim 496 So. 2d 596 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Peters v. Atlanta Intern. Ins. Co. 469 So. 2d 421 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Cordell v. Briley 469 So. 2d 461 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
the victim of a robbery was handed a slip of paper by a bystander, which bore the license number of a vehicle seen at the scene of the robbery.
State v. Johnson 466 So. 2d 741 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
State v. Johnson 461 So. 2d 1273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Mason 447 So. 2d 1134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Although the act of identifying the accused is essentially assertive in nature, and thus the officer's testimony to this effect was hearsay ( ), defendant was not substantially prejudiced by the remark in view of the fact that the two store cashiers had already identified defendant as one of the persons involved in the commission of the instant crime and in view of defendant's own testimony that he had been present in the store and had seen th
State v. Grigsby 445 So. 2d 176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
especially if the remark was precipitated by or should have been anticipated by the district attorney...” See also:
State v. Brown 434 So. 2d 1166 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Krolowitz 407 So. 2d 1175 La. 1981
See, C. McCormick, Evidence, § 297 at 705, et seq.
State v. Brown 395 So. 2d 1301 La. 1981
See, C. McCormick, Evidence, § 297 at 705, et seq.
State v. Vaughn 378 So. 2d 905 La. 1979
When hearsay identification testimony is merely corroborative of the witnesses' prior direct evidence of his own identification of the accused, and State v. Maiden, 258 La.
State v. Henderson 362 So. 2d 1358 La. 1978
State v. Monroe 345 So. 2d 1185 La. 1977
State v. Passman 345 So. 2d 874 La. 1977
State v. Maiden, 258 La.
State v. Jacobs 344 So. 2d 659 La. 1977
[3] State v. Ford, supra ; State v. Wilkerson, 261 La.
State v. Clark 340 So. 2d 1302 La. 1976
Art. 921; State v. Smith, La., (1973); State v. Maiden, 258 La.
State v. Miles 339 So. 2d 735 La. 1976
In State v. Smith, La., (1973), we stated: "With respect to Bill No. 8 we agree that the victim's act in picking our defendant's photograph was essentially assertive in nature, and thus the officer's testimony to this effect hearsay.
State v. May 339 So. 2d 764 La. 1976
See also, State v. Maiden, 258 La.
State v. Hatter 338 So. 2d 100 La. 1976
State v. Sockwell 337 So. 2d 451 La. 1976
1975) to support the contention.
State v. Ford 336 So. 2d 817 La. 1976
See: State v. Maiden, 258 La.
State v. Launey 335 So. 2d 435 La. 1976
State v. Babin 336 So. 2d 780 La. 1976
State v. Smith 329 So. 2d 725 La. 1976
State v. Lepkowski 316 So. 2d 727 La. 1975
State v. Bray 292 So. 2d 697 La. 1974
State v. Clark 288 So. 2d 612 La. 1974