Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Haynes, 291 So. 2d 771.

23 citing documents.

State v. Blank 955 So. 2d 90 La. 2007
State v. Nightengale 818 So. 2d 819 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
citing State v. Smith, 144 La.
State v. Duke 724 So. 2d 730 La. 1998
On appeal of the defendant's subsequent conviction and sentence for manslaughter, the First Circuit reversed and remanded the case for retrial on the basis of State v. *731 Haynes, accurately described by the court of appeal as a case in which "[t]he failure to contemporaneously introduce the totality of an inculpatory statement, as opposed to selected excerpts, was pronounced a violation of fairness in those instances when the defendant requests the [introduction of the] entire state
State v. Singleton 723 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
is applicable and requires reversal.
State v. McHenry 711 So. 2d 404 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
State v. Duke 702 So. 2d 1175 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
State v. Caldwell 679 So. 2d 973 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
citing State v. Smith, 144 La.
State v. Bolden 680 So. 2d 6 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
appeal after remand, (1976), the high court said: The deliberate attempt to use an excerpt from, rather than the entirety of, the defendant's prior admission or confession, in violation of La.R.S.
State v. Wille 559 So. 2d 1321 La. 1990
Defendant *1337 as cases in which this court condemned such a practice.
State v. Vinet 466 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Sutton 460 So. 2d 1087 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Joseph 454 So. 2d 237 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
State v. Green 443 So. 2d 531 La. 1983
State v. Morris 429 So. 2d 111 La. 1983
15:450; State v. Haynes (La.
State v. Day 400 So. 2d 622 La. 1981
however, citing American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice, Prosecution Function 5.7, [2] disapproved of the practice sanctioned by McMullan .
State v. Williams 366 So. 2d 1365 La. 1978
1974): Pretermitting the inconsistency of defendant's position, (1974) that `a party defendant is entitled to insist upon introduction of the entirety of a statement sought to be used against him, although of course he may waive the benefits of the protective statute.'
State v. Mullins 353 So. 2d 243 La. 1977
: Pretermitting the inconsistency of defendant's position, (1974) that `a party defendant is entitled to insist upon introduction of the entirety of a statement sought to be used against him, although of course he may waive the benefits of the protective statute.'
State v. Moore 344 So. 2d 973 La. 1977
15:450 the trial judge should have deleted that portion of the confession that made reference to other offenses and only permitted the introduction of that portion of the confession dealing with the murder of Vicki Nassar.
State v. Haynes 339 So. 2d 328 La. 1976
State v. Haynes, La., (1974).
State v. Duhon 332 So. 2d 245 La. 1976
I , with Justice Tate as the organ of the Court.
State v. Link 301 So. 2d 339 La. 1974
Regarding allusions to unrelated crimes contained in a taped confession, this Court recently stated in State v. Snedecor, La., (1974): "[W]e (1974) that `a party defendant is entitled to insist upon introduction of the entirety of a statement sought to be used against him, although of course he may waive the benefits of the protective statute.'
State v. Snedecor 294 So. 2d 207 La. 1974
Pretermitting the inconsistency of defendant's position, (1974) that "a party defendant is entitled to insist upon introduction of the entirety of a statement sought to be used against him, although of course he may waive the benefits of the protective statute."
State v. Fontenot 292 So. 2d 194 La. 1974
(1974) this Court said, “A party defendant is entitled to insist upon introduction of the entirety of a statement sought to be used against him, although of course he may waive the benefits of tlie protective statute.” (R.S.