Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Turner, 337 So. 2d 455.

34 citing documents.

State Of Louisiana v. Walter Perell Fisher, Jr. La. 2021
art. 611(E) (“the state in a criminal prosecution shall have the right to rebut evidence adduced by their opponents”); (La.
State v. Campbell 171 So. 3d 1176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Rebuttal evidence is “ ‘evidence which has become relevant or important only as an effect of some evidence introduced by the other side.’ ” (quoting State v. Smith, 120 La.
State v. Hatfield 155 So. 3d 572 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Randle 750 So. 2d 353 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Amato 698 So. 2d 972 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
quoting State v. Smith, 120 La.
State v. Harper 646 So. 2d 338 La. 1994
we recognized that a defendant could be prejudiced by a denial to him of the opportunity to defend against new issues raised by the prosecution on rebuttal, but that such prejudice "may normally be avoided by the trial court's permitting the defendant to introduce additional evidence to defend against
State v. Glover 636 So. 2d 976 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
State v. Video Joe, Inc. 578 So. 2d 182 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
State v. Encalarde 559 So. 2d 1391 La. 1990
State v. Harper 548 So. 2d 1281 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Deboue 552 So. 2d 355 La. 1989
State v. Monroe, 205 La.
State v. Grant 517 So. 2d 1151 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
State v. Mills 505 So. 2d 933 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State v. Brown 504 So. 2d 1086 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Truitt 500 So. 2d 355 La. 1987
State v. Caldwell 493 So. 2d 749 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: Again, in State v. Smith, 120 La.
State v. Shelton 490 So. 2d 515 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
State v. Billiot, supra .
State v. Jackson 482 So. 2d 807 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Thibodeaux 473 So. 2d 135 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
that: “In State v. Monroe, 205 La.
State v. Aspin 449 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Williams 445 So. 2d 1171 La. 1984
State v. Dayton 445 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
The principles concerning the proper admission of rebuttal evidence are discussed *78 in pertinent part as follows: [1] The state may not reserve part of its case-in-chief for rebuttal testimony, after the defense has put on its case and when it can no longer present evidence to rebut the state's case.
State v. MacK 435 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
As the defendant notes in his brief, (La.
State v. Parrish 434 So. 2d 475 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
State v. Billiot 421 So. 2d 864 La. 1982
State v. Perry 408 So. 2d 1358 La. 1982
compels the conclusion that the trial court committed reversible error in allowing the state to introduce defendants' inculpatory statements in rebuttal.
State v. Gatlin 396 So. 2d 1294 La. 1981
as follows: "The state may not reserve part of its case-in-chief for rebuttal testimony, after the defense has put on its case and when it can no longer present evidence to rebut the state's case.
State v. Western 355 So. 2d 1314 La. 1978
State v. Turner, La., (1976); State v. Monroe, 205 La.
State v. Hills 354 So. 2d 186 La. 1978
compels the conclusion that the trial court committed reversible error in allowing the State to introduce defendant's inculpatory statements in rebuttal.
State v. Alexander 351 So. 2d 505 La. 1977
They allege that State v. Turner, La., (1976), requires the State to offer this evidence during its case-in-chief.
State v. Maenza 350 So. 2d 1186 La. 1977
State v. Hatter 350 So. 2d 149 La. 1977
15:282; State v. Campbell 263 La.
State v. Watkins 340 So. 2d 235 La. 1976
See State v. Turner and Glover, La.
Distinguished State v. Hatter 338 So. 2d 100 La. 1976
[2] Thus, this case is distinguishable from State v. Turner, La., (1976), wherein we held that the State improperly saved inculpatory statements for rebuttal since they were evidence of guilt and did not contradict the defendant's alibi.