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. Gilmore, 332 So. 2d 789.

87 citing documents.

  • State v. Hankton 122 So. 3d 1028 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State v. Aulph 114 So. 3d 610 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
  • State of Louisiana v. Byran Louis Fogleman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • State v. Fogleman 98 So. 3d 964 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State v. Jacobs 67 So. 3d 535 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    See, State v. Fitzgerald, 248 La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Jonathan Edward Boyer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
  • State v. Boyer 56 So. 3d 1119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • State of Louisiana v. Jason Lee Short La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
  • State v. Short 958 So. 2d 93 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
  • State v. Jackson 935 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the district attorney was inherently empowered to amend an indictment charging first-degree murder to a charge of second-degree murder, even though there was no specific codal authorization for the procedure.
  • State of Louisiana v. Wade Knott, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    State v. Williams, 258 La.
  • State v. Knott 908 So. 2d 28 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    State v. Ran *32 dolph, State v. Williams, 258 La.
  • State v. Logan 822 So. 2d 657 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
  • State v. Hansbro 796 So. 2d 185 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
  • State v. Burns 750 So. 2d 505 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
  • State v. Beason 653 So. 2d 1274 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
  • State v. Williams 637 So. 2d 1230 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    In support, where the Court discussed the broad discretion afforded a trial court in deciding whether or not to allow the introduction of evidence to which the defense had offered a stipulation.
  • State v. Bibb 626 So. 2d 913 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
    -796 (La.1976), the Louisiana Supreme Court found that admission of the photos of the victim was rendered unnecessary by defendant's stipulation to the identity of the victim.
  • State v. Corley 617 So. 2d 1292 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
  • State v. Hicks 607 So. 2d 937 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    and State v. Kelly, supra .
  • State v. Deal 607 So. 2d 641 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    wherein a new trial was granted on the ground of newly discovered witnesses, whose testimony at a hearing was material, controverted much of the state's evidence and would probably have changed the verdict.
  • State v. Hammons 597 So. 2d 990 La. 1992
  • State v. Jackson 570 So. 2d 227 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
    State v. Talbot, supra, at 885
  • State v. Moore 569 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    2258 , 90 L.Ed.2d 703 (1986)
  • State v. Brown 567 So. 2d 1152 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
  • State v. Burrell 561 So. 2d 692 La. 1990
  • State v. Rogers 540 So. 2d 1155 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    Although the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized a the exception attaches only when the *1159 declarant is unavailable at trial and when there is additional evidence indicating that the declarant’s statement is reliable.
  • State v. Adams 537 So. 2d 1262 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
  • State v. Gooden 523 So. 2d 283 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
  • State v. Tezeno 507 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Breaux 504 So. 2d 1011 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Mason 499 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • State v. Bowman 491 So. 2d 1380 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
  • State v. Pleasant 489 So. 2d 1005 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • State v. Ford 489 So. 2d 1250 La. 1986
  • State v. Watson 484 So. 2d 870 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    the Supreme Court said: [W]here the State's proof has been rendered unnecessary by defendant's judicial admission, the prejudicial nature of the evidence assumes added significance *875 and correspondingly reduces the State's legitimate interest in its admission.
  • State v. Ruffin 475 So. 2d 1375 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
    State v. Talbot, supra, at 885
  • State v. Clark 466 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
  • State v. Rushing 464 So. 2d 268 La. 1985
  • State v. Washington 463 So. 2d 11 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
    in which the Supreme Court of Louisiana discussed this issue at length and said that the missing declarant should be “...
  • State v. James 459 So. 2d 1299 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Whitlock 454 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • State v. Guerin 452 So. 2d 746 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    the Supreme Court *750 held that statements against a declarant’s penal interest were admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.
  • State v. Freeman 447 So. 2d 1145 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    Although the issue presented appears to be res nova, prompts us to conclude that the procedure followed by the State in the instant case, i.e., the filing of a bill of information charging the defendant with the crime of second degree murder and his re-arraignment on that charge, amounts to nothing more than a formal amendment of the grand jury indictment whic
  • State v. Prudholm 446 So. 2d 729 La. 1984
    *736 State v. Talbot, supra, at 885
  • State v. Goodley 418 So. 2d 650 La. 1982
  • State v. Jett 419 So. 2d 844 La. 1982
  • State v. Edwards 420 So. 2d 663 La. 1982
    [4] where the defendant objected to the district attorney amending a first degree murder indictment in open court to charge second degree murder on the basis that he was deprived of a vested right to a unanimous jury verdict.
  • State v. Huntley 418 So. 2d 538 La. 1982
  • State v. Humphrey 412 So. 2d 507 La. 1982