Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Monk, 315 So. 2d 727.

75 citing documents.

State v. Griffin 167 So. 3d 31 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s sustaining of the State’s challenge for cause of a prospective juror who stated that he would not convict on circumstantial evidence.
State v. Hatfield 155 So. 3d 572 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Cyrus , 2011-1175, pp. 20-21, 97 So.3d at 565-66 ; (testimony of officer that he was advised of a shooting incident was not hearsay because it was not offered to prove the truth of matter asserted, but was offered to explain why, having received this information, the officer began an investigation); (deputy’s testimony not hearsay when offered solely for the purpose of establishing the fact that he received a radio message that a robbery had been committed at a bank by two men who left on a moto
State of Louisiana v. Albert Meaux, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State v. LeBlanc, 116 La.
State v. Keys 125 So. 3d 19 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
4 Cir. 7/5/12) , -66 , ( ).
State v. Skipper 101 So. 3d 537 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
4 Cir. 7/5/12), -66 , ( ).
State v. Cyrus 97 So. 3d 554 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Hernandez 93 So. 3d 615 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State of Louisiana v. Willard Brandenburg La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
State v. Brandenburg 949 So. 2d 625 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
State v. Legendre 942 So. 2d 45 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
State v. Wright 931 So. 2d 432 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Maise, XXXX-XXXX (La.01/15/02)
Overruled State v. Bridgewater 823 So. 2d 877 La. 2002
(as a general matter, the testimony of a police officer may encompass information provided by another individual without constituting hearsay if offered to explain the course of police investigation and the steps leading to the defendant's arrest).
State v. Maise 805 So. 2d 1141 La. 2002
State v. Frank 758 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
State v. LeBlanc, 116-La,-822, 41 So.
State v. Thompson 752 So. 2d 293 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. Broadway 753 So. 2d 801 La. 1999
In the present case the prosecutor, argues that testimony by a police officer, as to his action taken in response to a person's out-of-court statement, is admissible, not to prove the truth of the out-of-court statement, but to explain the sequence of events leading to the arrest of the defen
State v. Hernandez 735 So. 2d 888 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State v. Leblanc[Le Blanc], 116 La.
State v. Brown 702 So. 2d 744 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
State v. Hawkins 688 So. 2d 473 La. 1997
State v. Green 651 So. 2d 435 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
State v. Wright 618 So. 2d 540 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
upheld the trial court’s ruling granting the state’s challenge for cause of a juror who stated that he could not convict on circumstantial evidence.
Usner v. Strobach 591 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
-738 (La.1975), the court observed that "[P]ermitting the selection of tales jurors from among bystanders in or about the courthouse is not violative of the right to an impartial jury."
State v. Bobb 573 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
State v. Wille 559 So. 2d 1321 La. 1990
In the present case the prosecutor, argues that testimony by a police officer, as to his action taken in response to a person's out-of-court statement, is admissible, not to prove the truth of the out-of-court statement, but to explain the sequence of events leading to the arrest of the defendant f
State v. McClintock 535 So. 2d 1231 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Leblanc, 116 La.
State v. Roman 473 So. 2d 897 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
State v. Sepcich 473 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State v. Valentine 464 So. 2d 1091 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Gallow 452 So. 2d 1288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Vessel 435 So. 2d 1124 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Kahey 436 So. 2d 475 La. 1983
State v. Leblanc, 116 La.
State v. Walker 432 So. 2d 1057 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Perry 420 So. 2d 139 La. 1982
State v. Russell 416 So. 2d 1283 La. 1982
State v. Arabie 414 So. 2d 775 La. 1982
State v. Edwards 406 So. 2d 1331 La. 1981
State v. Wilkerson 403 So. 2d 652 La. 1981
State v. Tauzier 397 So. 2d 494 La. 1981
State v. Claiborne 397 So. 2d 486 La. 1981
See, e. g., State v. Shaffer, 260 La.
State v. Brown 395 So. 2d 1301 La. 1981
this Court determined insignificant technicalities, or irregularities will not permit a composition of a jury to be set aside in absence of a showing of irreparable injury to the accused.
State v. Landry 384 So. 2d 786 La. 1980
State v. Champagne 381 So. 2d 482 La. 1980
at page 737 (La.1975), to the effect that insignificant irregularities in the composition of a grand or petit jury does not warrant quashing an indictment in the absence of a showing of fraud or resultant irreparable injury to the accused.
State v. Hatcher 372 So. 2d 1024 La. 1979
State v. Billiot 370 So. 2d 539 La. 1979
and the many cases cited in these opinions; State v. Cripps, 259 La.
State v. Kirsch 363 So. 2d 429 La. 1978
State v. Sheppard, La., (1977); State v. Monk, La., (1975); State v. Gonzales, supra .
State v. Carter 363 So. 2d 893 La. 1978
State v. Luckett, La., (1976); State v. Monk, La., (1975).
State v. Banks 362 So. 2d 540 La. 1978
State v. Drew 360 So. 2d 500 La. 1978
State v. Mitchell 356 So. 2d 974 La. 1978
State v. Dominick 354 So. 2d 1316 La. 1978