Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Calloway, 324 So. 2d 801.

39 citing documents.

Vs. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
Vs. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
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 ex rel. S.L. 94 So. 3d 822 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Henry 73 So. 3d 958 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. James, 36,-493 (La.App.2d Cir.12/11/02), ; writ denied
State v. Smothers 927 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
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. Ballay 757 So. 2d 115 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
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 e
State v. Smith 710 So. 2d 1187 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
State v. Edwards, supra .
State v. Hawkins 688 So. 2d 473 La. 1997
State v. Bordenave 660 So. 2d 1207 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
State v. Soler 636 So. 2d 1069 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
State v. Edwards, supra.
State v. Bouie 598 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
3103 , 443 U.S. 912 , 61 L.Ed.2d 876 ; ; , application denied .
State v. Granier 592 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
State v. Wille, supra, 559 So.2d at 1330 ; (La.App.
State v. Williams 591 So. 2d 404 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
2011 , 72 L.Ed.2d 467 (1981)
State v. Williams 591 So. 2d 404 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
2011 , 72 L.Ed.2d 467 (1981)
State v. Granier 563 So. 2d 1354 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
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
State v. Francis 554 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Harris 518 So. 2d 590 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Johnson 513 So. 2d 832 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
4th Cir.1984), writ denied, (1985)
State v. Lasseigne 464 So. 2d 1097 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
“ ‘Surprise’ in the sense of the last preceding article does not arise out of the mere failure of the witness to testify as expected, but out of his testifying upon some material matter against the party introducing him and in favor of the other side.” the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the standard for surprise was met where: 1) the state proved, outside the presence of the jury, that it had no prior indication that the witness would testify contrary to his prior statement, and 2) the testim
State v. Washington 461 So. 2d 340 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Lard 459 So. 2d 1189 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Watson 449 So. 2d 1321 La. 1984
State v. Edwards, supra.
State v. Edwards 406 So. 2d 1331 La. 1981
at 809 (La.1976), the statements are "admitted not to prove the truth of the assertion...
State v. Gould 395 So. 2d 647 La. 1981
State v. Chaney 384 So. 2d 442 La. 1980
State v. Johnson 368 So. 2d 719 La. 1979
State v. Moses 367 So. 2d 800 La. 1979
15:487-88; (1976); (1975); (1974).
State v. King 355 So. 2d 1305 La. 1978
State v. Shirley, 256 La.
State v. Tucker 354 So. 2d 521 La. 1978
State v. Moore 344 So. 2d 973 La. 1977
State v. Ardoin 340 So. 2d 1362 La. 1976
State v. Fulmer, 263 La.
State v. Kaufman 331 So. 2d 16 La. 1976