Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Roach, 338 So. 2d 621.

16 citing documents.

State v. Shaw 785 So. 2d 34 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Babin 637 So. 2d 814 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Succession of Lauga 624 So. 2d 1156 La. 1993
State v. Stokes 511 So. 2d 1317 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State v. Sexton 477 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Ford, supra; State v. Monroe, supra.
State v. Gultry 471 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
the Louisiana Supreme Court addressed this same issue and held that although rebuttal testimony was repetitious and perhaps error, it was not reversible error since the rebuttal testimony merely adverted to evidence already properly admitted and thus, the repetition did not "prejudic[e] the substantial
State v. Allen 380 So. 2d 28 La. 1980
State v. Bouffanie 364 So. 2d 971 La. 1978
State v. Jackson 358 So. 2d 1263 La. 1978
State v. Ford, supra ; (La.
State v. Johnson 352 So. 2d 1285 La. 1977
State v. Franklin 353 So. 2d 1315 La. 1977
Santana, supra; Warden, supra
State v. Lewis 351 So. 2d 1193 La. 1977
State v. Alexander 351 So. 2d 505 La. 1977
State v. Roach, La., (1976).
State v. Herbert 351 So. 2d 434 La. 1977
The experience of these officers, the presence of known addicts at the scene of the first encounter; the use of matchboxes to disguise the transfer of narcotics, a modus operandi with which they were undoubtedly *438 familiar, (1976); (1974), cert.
State v. Ford 349 So. 2d 300 La. 1977
State v. Culotta 343 So. 2d 977 La. 1977
a similar constitutional interpretation was suggested based largely on the convention debates and proceedings.