Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Freetime, 334 So. 2d 207.

36 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Kristina Nichole Hoffpauir La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2025
Thus, “it is well established that an accused party cannot be legally convicted on his own uncorroborated confession without proof that a crime has been committed by someone; in other words, without proof of the corpus delicti.” (La.
In re State in Interest of J.S. 268 So. 3d 311 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. RWW 953 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
App. 3 Cir. 11/2/05), ( -89 (La.1974) aff'd after remand, ).
State of Louisiana v. R.W.W. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
3 Cir. 11/2/05), ( -89 (La.1974) aff’d after remand, ).
State v. R.W.W. 953 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
App. 3 Cir. 11/2/05), ( -89 (La.1974) affd after remand, ).
State of Louisiana v. Justin Savoy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. 8 Freetime, appeal after remand
State v. Savoy 916 So. 2d 339 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
1975); appeal after remand
State v. Brooks 781 So. 2d 1266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Robinson 780 So. 2d 1213 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
State v. Broussard 598 So. 2d 1302 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
State v. Adams 550 So. 2d 595 La. 1989
aff'd after remand, (La.
State ex rel. Hayes 536 So. 2d 1294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Phillips 514 So. 2d 743 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State v. Gongre 503 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
1974), affirmed after remand, our Supreme Court held that a trial court’s allowance of a jury to have access to a defendant’s written confession, after the jury had retired, for the sole purpose of rereading the confession was reversible error and in violation of the clear legislative mandate of LSA-C.Cr.P.
State v. Rollins 463 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Ring 461 So. 2d 1162 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
State v. Cruz 455 So. 2d 1351 La. 1984
*1356 State v. Brown, 236 La.
State v. Joseph 454 So. 2d 237 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
"[p]roof that defendant was the person who engaged in this unlawful conduct is of course necessary for the conviction, but it is not an element of the corpus delicti.
State v. Stokes 451 So. 2d 1355 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Jackson, supra.
State v. Celestine 452 So. 2d 676 La. 1984
1056 , 62 L.Ed.2d 780 (1980); United States v. Johnson, 589 F.2d 716 (D.C.Cir.1978); (Calogero, J., concurring); 1 H. Underhill, Criminal Evidence § 36, at 18 (6th ed. P. Herrick 1980 Supp.); 1 F. Wharton, Criminal Evidence § 691, at 490 (13th ed. C. Torcia 1972).
State v. Fuller 446 So. 2d 799 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Jackson 444 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Shapiro 431 So. 2d 372 La. 1983
State v. Reed 420 So. 2d 950 La. 1982
and stated therein, without citation of authority, that there was no necessity for the link between the defendant and the corpus delicti and the defendant's confession could be admitted without independent proof of such a link.
State v. Willie 410 So. 2d 1019 La. 1982
State v. Lindsey 404 So. 2d 466 La. 1981
State v. Strickland 398 So. 2d 1062 La. 1981
State v. Leggett 363 So. 2d 434 La. 1978
State v. Robertson, supra ; State v. Lacoste, 256 La.
State v. Robertson 358 So. 2d 931 La. 1978
State v. Ashley 354 So. 2d 528 La. 1978
State v. Robinson 353 So. 2d 1001 La. 1977
In State v. Freetime, La., (1976), this Court stated: "It is a well-settled rule that a photograph need not be identified by the person who took it to be admissible in evidence.
State v. Mullins 353 So. 2d 243 La. 1977
State v. Cass 356 So. 2d 936 La. 1977
State v. Forbes 348 So. 2d 983 La. 1977
In State v. Freetime, La., (1976), we stated: "It is a well-settled rule that a photograph need not be identified by the person who took it to be admissible in evidence.
State v. Anthony 347 So. 2d 483 La. 1977
State v. Freetime, La., (1976); State v. Curry, La., (1976); State v. Jones, La., (1975).
State v. Williams 343 So. 2d 1026 La. 1977