Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Kaufman, 304 So. 2d 300.

77 citing documents.

State v. Davis 400 So. 2d 208 La. 1981
art. 857 and comments thereunder; State v. Sam, La., ; State v. Moore, La., ; State v. Jones, La., ; State v. Kaufman, La., .
State v. Bretz 394 So. 2d 245 La. 1981
State v. Hills 379 So. 2d 740 La. 1980
State v. Harrison 367 So. 2d 1 La. 1979
State v. Hayes 364 So. 2d 923 La. 1978
this court reversed a conviction because, among other errors, the prosecutor argued that he personally believed the defendant to be guilty and that he would not be in court if he did not because he had discretion to institute prosecutions as he saw fit.
State v. West 363 So. 2d 513 La. 1978
that introduction of testimony given at prior hearings may be introduced, without offending the confrontation and cross-examination clauses of the federal and state constitutions, provided the following conditions are met: "1.
State v. Boyd 359 So. 2d 931 La. 1978
State v. Duke 358 So. 2d 293 La. 1978
State v. Smith 357 So. 2d 524 La. 1978
State v. Hamilton 356 So. 2d 1360 La. 1978
and authorities cited therein.
Nami v. Peninsular Fire Insurance 355 So. 2d 1036 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
1974, ; State v. Williams, La.
State v. Qualls 353 So. 2d 978 La. 1977
We find the prosecutor's remarks could have been interpreted as an opinion of defendant's guilt, an opinion which might have been based upon something outside the evidence admitted at trial (see, e. g., (La.
State v. Whitmore 353 So. 2d 1286 La. 1977
See State v. Sawyer, La., (1977); State v. Kaufman, La., (1974).
State v. Sawyer 350 So. 2d 611 La. 1977
Thus, in State v. Kaufman, La., (1974), this Court held it was error for the prosecutor to emphasize to the jury that he would not be prosecuting if he did not think he had a case.
State v. Wesley 347 So. 2d 217 La. 1977
State v. Sylvester 343 So. 2d 1020 La. 1977
They cite Article 295 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which allows the admission under certain circumstances of a witness' testimony recorded at a preliminary hearing, [4] and they rely on our decisions in State *1022 v. Pearson, which allow the introduction in certain circumstances at defendant's second trial of the testimony recorded at his first trial.
State v. May 339 So. 2d 764 La. 1976
State v. Landry, 262 La.
State v. Unzueta 337 So. 2d 1102 La. 1976
The theory of the defense is that these remarks *1105 were "highly prejudicial", and the remark, "we have convicted him without it", is an impermissible comment, and an expression of personal opinion by the District Attorney contrary to Article 774
State v. Gallow 338 So. 2d 920 La. 1976
This Court stated in State v. Kaufman, La., (1974), citing the American Bar Association standards relating to the prosecutorial function, Standard 5.8(c), Comment b: "Credibility is solely for the triers, but an advocate may point to the fact that circumstances or independent witnesses give support to one witness or cast doubt on another."
State v. Pearson 336 So. 2d 833 La. 1976
1930 , 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970); McCormick on Evidence, § 252 (Cleary ed. 1972).
State v. Ford 336 So. 2d 817 La. 1976
at 304 (summary of principles); Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 721-22 , 88 S.Ct.
State v. Kaufman 331 So. 2d 16 La. 1976
State v. Brown 326 So. 2d 839 La. 1976
It is contended the comments are similar to those requiring a
State v. Jones 325 So. 2d 235 La. 1976
1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968)
State v. West 319 So. 2d 901 La. 1975
Art. 774; State v. Kaufman, La., (1974); State v. Curry, 262 La.
State v. Brown 319 So. 2d 409 La. 1975
State v. Lepkowski 316 So. 2d 727 La. 1975
Less than a year ago, noted that the type of argument used in this case, "* * * has been held to be erroneous and prejudicial in Louisiana since at least State v. Accardo, 129 La.