Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Senegal, 316 So. 2d 124.

27 citing documents.

State v. Burbank 893 So. 2d 109 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974)
State v. Burbank 811 So. 2d 1112 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974)
State v. Irish 807 So. 2d 208 La. 2002
1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); (how state witness came about being a state police narcotics agent was not irrelevant, and refusal to permit defense counsel to cross-examine witness in order to establish bias, interest, or corruption was improper, in prosecution for distribution of marijuana); La.C.E.
State v. Davis 818 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Brady, 381 *83 So.2d at 822 ; -126 (La.1975); State v. Lewis, 236 La.
State v. Broussard 796 So. 2d 891 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
“The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that a defendant in a criminal case be allowed within traditional limits to impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness by cross-examination directed at possible bias or interest.”
State v. Labran 737 So. 2d 903 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); La.
State v. Coleman 702 So. 2d 803 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Defendant’s right of confrontation is “a paramount and fundamental right indispensable to a fair trial.”
State v. Fisher 692 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); La.
State v. Hawkins 572 So. 2d 108 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); (La.
Distinguished State v. Parker 536 So. 2d 459 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
relied on by defendant in brief.
State Ex Rel. Nicholas v. State 520 So. 2d 377 La. 1988
State v. Nash, supra, 475 So.2d at 755 ; -127 (La.1975); State v. Elias, 229 La.
State v. Burns 504 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State v. Guillory 502 So. 2d 258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
2d Cir. 1983); Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 , 94 S.Ct.
State v. Walker 489 So. 2d 353 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Senegal, [ ]; Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 , 94 S.Ct.
State v. Williams 486 So. 2d 889 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); State *892 v. Senegal
State v. Rankin 465 So. 2d 679 La. 1985
1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974)
State v. Rankin 454 So. 2d 880 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Russell 434 So. 2d 460 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Defense counsel argues that the defendant was deprived of his constitutional right to confrontation and full and complete cross-examination of the complaining witness
Distinguished State v. Gomez 433 So. 2d 230 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
The defendant contends that the cases of Brady, are controlling.
State v. Small 427 So. 2d 1254 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
State v. Chapman 410 So. 2d 689 La. 1982
Distinguished State v. Garrison 400 So. 2d 874 La. 1981
wherein this Court found as reversible error a trial court's restricting the cross-examination of a state witness.
State v. Johnson 365 So. 2d 1267 La. 1978
State v. Robinson 337 So. 2d 1168 La. 1976
See, e.g.: State v. Chambers, 263 La.
State v. Souby 332 So. 2d 253 La. 1976
15:273; State v. Keller, 255 La.
State v. Lewis 328 So. 2d 75 La. 1976
State v. Guidry 319 So. 2d 415 La. 1975
1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); State v. Lewis, 236 La.