Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Banks, 307 So. 2d 594.

63 citing documents.

State v. Elzie 343 So. 2d 712 La. 1977
distinguishing Medlock in the case of simple distribution crimes which do not specify "intent to distribute."
Distinguished State v. Gaines 340 So. 2d 1294 La. 1977
State v. Slayton 338 So. 2d 694 La. 1976
concerned the proof of an identical transaction between the same parties, closely related in time and place, to prove a genuine issue of disputed identification by the undercover-agent buyer.
State v. Frederick 340 So. 2d 1353 La. 1976
State v. Clift 339 So. 2d 755 La. 1976
: "In spite of the words in R.S.
State v. Clark 338 So. 2d 690 La. 1976
State v. Hills 337 So. 2d 1155 La. 1976
We do not find Article 768 to require more than such adequate notice, nor that a second notice reiterating the state's obvious intent to use such evidence is technically required by the Article, cf., nor that the defendant was prejudiced in any respect by any failure to reiterate the notice previously given.
State v. Harvey 329 So. 2d 731 La. 1976
State v. Banks, La., (1975); State v. Ivy, La., (1975); State v. Daniels, 262 La.
State v. Clay 327 So. 2d 395 La. 1976
State v. Knight 323 So. 2d 765 La. 1975
However, we stated: Nevertheless, in spite of the prohibition in R.S.
State v. Scott 320 So. 2d 538 La. 1975
State v. Davis 311 So. 2d 860 La. 1975
State v. Jackson 307 So. 2d 604 La. 1975
In addition, for the reasons noted in my dissent this day in State v. Banks, La., , I would find merit in the bills attacking the admission, as rebuttal evidence, of the testimony of Detective Alford.