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. Thompson, 331 So. 2d 848.

23 citing documents.

  • State v. Rubin 649 So. 2d 1240 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
    (officer's testimony that an informant told him defendant was standing on a particular street corner waiting to buy ten bags of heroin from a New York dealer was inadmissible and prejudicial hearsay); (officer's testimony that an informant told him the defendant committed the armed robbery was inadmissible hearsay and was prejudicial because it directly related to the guilt of the accused); (officer's testimony that a confidential informant told him the defendant w
  • State v. Robinson 634 So. 2d 1274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • State v. Preston 623 So. 2d 938 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
  • State v. Hearold 603 So. 2d 731 La. 1992
    (officer's testimony that an informant told him defendant was standing on a particular street corner waiting to buy ten bags of heroin from a New York dealer was inadmissible and prejudicial hearsay); (officer's testimony that an informant told him the defendant committed the armed robbery was inadmissible hearsay and was prejudicial because it directly related to the guilt of the accused); (officer's testimony that a confidential informant told him the defendant w
  • State v. Harris 597 So. 2d 1105 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
  • State v. Veal 583 So. 2d 901 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    the trial court permitted an officer, under the guise of explaining his subsequent conduct, to testify that an anonymous informant had specifically identified the defendant as one of two men involved in an armed robbery.
  • State v. Williams 569 So. 2d 1031 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
  • State v. White 559 So. 2d 541 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
  • State v. Wille 559 So. 2d 1321 La. 1990
    the trial court permitted an officer, under the guise of explaining his subsequent conduct, to testify that an anonymous informant had specifically identified the defendant as one of two men involved in an armed robbery.
  • State v. Riley 532 So. 2d 1174 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Gremillion 529 So. 2d 497 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
  • State v. DiLosa 529 So. 2d 14 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
  • State v. Lapworth 517 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Davenport 445 So. 2d 1190 La. 1984
  • State v. Banks 428 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    Appellant cites State v. Murphy for the proposition that to permit an officer to relate an informant's hearsay statements requires automatic reversal, at least in those instances where the statement directly implicates the defendant in the commission of a crime.
  • State v. Spell 399 So. 2d 551 La. 1981
    State v. Weedon, supra .
  • State v. Doze 384 So. 2d 351 La. 1980
  • State v. Sheppard 371 So. 2d 1135 La. 1979
  • State v. Arbuthnot 367 So. 2d 296 La. 1979
    582-84 (1978); see 37 La.L.Rev.
  • State v. Milby 345 So. 2d 18 La. 1977
  • State v. Weedon 342 So. 2d 642 La. 1977
  • State v. Nolan 341 So. 2d 885 La. 1977
  • State v. Tallie 337 So. 2d 504 La. 1976