DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Boothe, 310 So. 2d 826.

21 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Kenneth Wayne Montgomery La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • State v. Burmaster 710 So. 2d 274 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
  • State v. Smith 485 So. 2d 646 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    State v. Strickland, supra
  • State v. Magee 487 So. 2d 1233 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    However, which said, without ruling whether or not such oral statements are discoverable by a bill of particulars, that the state cannot mislead the defendant by its answer to a bill of particulars by saying it has no statements and then try to introduce oral statements at trial.
  • State v. Booth 448 So. 2d 1363 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
    State v. Strickland, supra; State v. Hatter, supra
  • State v. Ray 423 So. 2d 1116 La. 1982
    State v. Strickland, supra
  • State v. Mitchell 412 So. 2d 1042 La. 1982
  • State v. Amedee 408 So. 2d 1259 La. 1982
    The circumstances under which the toxicological test was admitted are more analogous to Pool, supra, and other cases cited by defendant.
  • State v. Davis 399 So. 2d 1168 La. 1981
  • State v. Strickland 398 So. 2d 1062 La. 1981
  • State v. Toomer 395 So. 2d 1320 La. 1981
    The defendant further argues that it was improper for the trial court to admit evidence concerning undisclosed oral inculpatory statements at the motion to suppress hearing
  • State v. Statum 390 So. 2d 886 La. 1980
  • State v. Pool 361 So. 2d 1202 La. 1978
  • State v. Washington 353 So. 2d 258 La. 1977
  • State v. Hatter 350 So. 2d 149 La. 1977
  • State v. Hodges 349 So. 2d 250 La. 1977
    Defendant argues that State v. Boothe, La., (1975), requires that a defendant be notified upon request of the existence, if not the content, of an oral statement.
  • State v. Jenkins 340 So. 2d 157 La. 1976
  • State v. Sharp 338 So. 2d 654 La. 1976
  • State v. Perkins 337 So. 2d 1145 La. 1976
    The leading case on this issue is State v. Boothe, La., (1975).
  • State v. Lewis 328 So. 2d 75 La. 1976
    there was no patent misrepresentation, either deliberate or negligent, nor was the inculpatory statement of such a nature or importance as to constitute the injection of any issue of substantial impact upon the preparation for trial or upon trial tactics.
  • State v. Sneed 316 So. 2d 372 La. 1975
    Had the defendant actually been misled to his prejudice by the state's failure to give him notice of this particular inculpatory statement in accordance with its agreement to comply with the motion for oyer, such prejudicially misleading conduct, (decided March 31, 1974), would, we are sure, have been strongly asserted as a ground for the objection.