Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Jackson, 307 So. 2d 604.

49 citing documents.

State v. Powell 683 So. 2d 1281 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
State v. Jack 614 So. 2d 215 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
State v. Singleton 589 So. 2d 1166 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
State v. Johnson 550 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
allows for examination of a witness on the details of a prior conviction in order to establish the true nature of that offense.
State v. Washington 550 So. 2d 287 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the nature of the cross-examination concerning details of prior convictions: this Court reversed the prior jurisprudence and held that the prosecution, in impeaching the credibility of a defense witness, may not only establish prior convictions of the witness, but may also cross-examine the witness about the details of the prior convictions in order to show the “true nature” of the
State v. Smith 541 So. 2d 217 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
15:495 provides in pertinent part, “Evidence of conviction of crimes, but not of arrest, indictment or prosecution, is admissible for the purpose of impeaching the witness ...” held "...
State v. Ferguson 540 So. 2d 1116 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Tassin 536 So. 2d 402 La. 1988
held that it was not error to cross-examine a witness as to details of a conviction for the purpose of establishing the true nature of the offense.
State v. Neal 535 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
State v. Guillory 526 So. 2d 1164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Overruled State v. Tatum 506 So. 2d 584 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
State v. Smith 504 So. 2d 1070 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Truitt 500 So. 2d 355 La. 1987
State v. Caillouet 496 So. 2d 1312 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
The Louisiana Supreme Court, held as follows: “ this court held that it was not improper to cross-examine a witness about details of a prior conviction for the purpose of establishing the true nature of the offense.
State v. Jackson 490 So. 2d 536 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Robinson 485 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
State v. Lester 482 So. 2d 15 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Williams 464 So. 2d 443 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Miller 449 So. 2d 1361 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Williams 445 So. 2d 1171 La. 1984
that allows inquiry into the details of a prior offense, as contrary to R.S.
State v. Tobias 441 So. 2d 400 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Neslo 433 So. 2d 73 La. 1983
State v. Chaney 423 So. 2d 1092 La. 1982
that the prosecution may not only establish prior convictions of a witness, but may also cross examine that witness about the details of the prior convictions in order to show the true nature of the offenses.
State v. Smith 419 So. 2d 468 La. 1982
The District Attorney con *472 tinued by saying, “who is on probation at this very moment, as a result of a trial in which he was convicted of possessing sixteen stolen hotel keys, forgetting about that?” addressed the issue of whether the defendant may be examined about the details of a crime which is being used to impeach his credibility.
State v. Talbert 416 So. 2d 97 La. 1982
State v. Huizar 414 So. 2d 741 La. 1982
State v. Talbot 408 So. 2d 861 La. 1981
omitted from consideration the policy considerations that juries would treat such evidence as proof of the defendant's propensity to commit crime, resulting in convictions based on the defendant's character rather than this conduct.
State v. McKeever 407 So. 2d 662 La. 1981
and its progeny should be overruled because it is in direct contravention of R.S.
State v. Kimble 407 So. 2d 693 La. 1981
State v. Connor 403 So. 2d 678 La. 1981
Overruled State v. Martin 400 So. 2d 1063 La. 1981
Criticized State v. Oliver 387 So. 2d 1154 La. 1980
5, pp. 11-26) The court ruled that the facts of the prior conviction were proper subjects for jury consideration
State v. Brown 371 So. 2d 746 La. 1979
this Court reversed the prior jurisprudence and held that the prosecution, in impeaching the credibility of a defense witness, may not only establish prior convictions of the witness, but may also cross-examine the witness about the details of the prior convictions in order to show the "true nature" of the
State v. Johnson 368 So. 2d 719 La. 1979
See, State v. Williams, supra ; State v. Elam, supra
State v. Sykes 364 So. 2d 1293 La. 1978
State v. Thompson 364 So. 2d 908 La. 1978
State v. Carter 363 So. 2d 893 La. 1978
State v. Jackson, La., (1975).
Criticized State v. Pounds 359 So. 2d 150 La. 1978
is Court which permit a prosecutor to cross-examine a defendant on the circumstances surrounding the crime forming the basis of a prior conviction, regardless of their irrelevance *154 to the witness' credibility, have been criticized, Pugh, The Work of the Louisiana Appellate Courts for the 1974-1975 Term-Evidence, 36 La.L.Rev.
State v. Richards 357 So. 2d 554 La. 1978
should be overruled and is here extended beyond its own holding.
State v. Smith 358 So. 2d 317 La. 1978
State v. Dupar 353 So. 2d 272 La. 1977
this court held that the state, in impeaching the credibility of a defense witness, may not only establish prior convictions of the witness, but also may cross-examine the witness about the details of the prior convictions in order to show the "true nature" of the offenses.
State v. Whitmore 353 So. 2d 1286 La. 1977
See State v. Jackson, La., (1975); State v. Elam, La., (1975).
State v. Elzie 351 So. 2d 1174 La. 1977
State v. Victor 347 So. 2d 205 La. 1977
NOTES [1] Although a majority of this Court held that such details are admissible, departing from the previous jurisprudence of this Court, (La.
State v. Chenier 343 So. 2d 177 La. 1977
State v. Bennett 341 So. 2d 847 La. 1976
this court held that it was proper to inquire into the details of past convictions of a witness (for the purpose of impeaching his credibility) so that the true nature of the offense can be established.
State v. Jackson 339 So. 2d 730 La. 1976
In State v. Jackson, La., (1975), this Court held that the State, in impeaching a defense witness, may not only establish prior convictions of the witness, but also may cross-examine the witness about the details of the prior convictions in order to show the "true nature" of the offenses.
State v. Williams 339 So. 2d 728 La. 1976
State v. Elam 312 So. 2d 318 La. 1975