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. Ford, 336 So. 2d 817.

28 citing documents.

  • State v. Farrier 162 So. 3d 1233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State v. Pierre 131 So. 3d 319 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State v. Rogers 656 So. 2d 768 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
  • State v. Jones 642 So. 2d 151 La. 1994
  • State v. Romero 574 So. 2d 330 La. 1990
  • State v. Wille 559 So. 2d 1321 La. 1990
  • State v. Rhodes 552 So. 2d 585 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Miller 489 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
  • State v. Monta 470 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    The court stressed that the party attempting to introduce the evidence must make a proper showing that a good faith effort was made to obtain the presence of the witness at the trial, giving the following examples: the witness had died, the witness has escaped from jail, the witness has asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege, and the witness has gone to sea
  • State v. Wright 446 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • State v. Nall 439 So. 2d 420 La. 1983
    Applying this principle of necessity, courts have over the years developed a number of instances where a witness will be considered unavailable: where the witness is dead, (La.
  • State v. Small 427 So. 2d 1254 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Thomas 406 So. 2d 1325 La. 1981
  • State v. Boudreaux 396 So. 2d 1303 La. 1981
  • State v. McIntyre 381 So. 2d 408 La. 1980
  • State v. Vaughn 378 So. 2d 905 La. 1979
    we held specifically that even the acts of pointing to and selecting a photograph constitute such assertive conduct and that testimony about these acts is hearsay, "an assertive communication introduced for the truth of the assertion thereby made."
  • State v. Martin 376 So. 2d 300 La. 1979
  • State v. Egena 369 So. 2d 1295 La. 1979
    Examples of such showings appear in this Court's decisions: died, escaped from jail, asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege, (La.
  • State v. Arnold 367 So. 2d 324 La. 1979
    at page 821 (La.1976); and Pugh, Louisiana Evidence Law, pages 388-432 (1972).
  • State v. English 367 So. 2d 815 La. 1979
  • State v. Arbuthnot 367 So. 2d 296 La. 1979
  • State v. Scott 358 So. 2d 1271 La. 1978
    this Court was presented with this precise legal issue.
  • State v. Turner 352 So. 2d 1007 La. 1977
    State v. Bell, La., (1977); State v. Sylvester, La., (1977); State v. Ford, La., (1976); State v. Ghoram, La., (1976).
  • State v. Milby 345 So. 2d 18 La. 1977
  • State v. Jacobs 344 So. 2d 659 La. 1977
    where we held that the testimony of a police officer describing the conduct of a witness who identified a defendant is inadmissible because it is assertive hearsay.
  • State v. Williams 343 So. 2d 1026 La. 1977
  • State v. Williams 341 So. 2d 370 La. 1976
    This is not an instance where an officer related a witness' out-of-court identification of a defendant such as we found inadmissible in State v. Jacobs, (La.1976), No. 57,629
  • State v. May 339 So. 2d 764 La. 1976