Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Robinson, 337 So. 2d 1168.

46 citing documents.

State of Louisiana Versus Teddy Chester La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2021
State v. Landrieu 274 So. 3d 661 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
State v. Robinson , , 1170 (La.
State v. Tassin 129 So. 3d 1235 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2013
State v. Bowens 871 So. 2d 1178 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
State v. Bowie 813 So. 2d 377 La. 2002
State v. Burbank 811 So. 2d 1112 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
1976); 3A Wigmore, Evidence Sec.
State v. Lindsey 671 So. 2d 1155 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
art 607 D(1); State v. Free, 26,267 (La.App.
Nash v. Collins 654 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
State v. Glynn 653 So. 2d 1288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
State v. Free 643 So. 2d 767 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
State v. Bennett 633 So. 2d 272 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
In his brief to this Court, for the proposition that evidence of an arrest may be admissible for impeachment purposes when it is independently relevant to show bias.
Orfanello v. Laurente 626 So. 2d 417 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
State v. Thomas 589 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
15:492; -1171 (La.1976).
State v. Lewis 578 So. 2d 253 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
State v. Francis 554 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Accord *259 ingly, we find defendant’s argument is not properly before us. In denying defendant’s motion to examine Richard, recognized that it was permissible to impeach a witness by establishing prior arrests for the limited purpose of showing bias, interest, or corruption.
Shepard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 545 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
State v. Thompson 544 So. 2d 421 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Billiot 521 So. 2d 763 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
State v. Creel 508 So. 2d 859 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
State v. Allo 510 So. 2d 14 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
State v. Cook 485 So. 2d 606 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
State v. Harrison 484 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Krempel 471 So. 2d 841 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Ashworth 469 So. 2d 1198 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Haslom 468 So. 2d 1354 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Rankin 465 So. 2d 679 La. 1985
State v. Loyd 459 So. 2d 498 La. 1984
State v. Jenkins 456 So. 2d 174 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Rankin 454 So. 2d 880 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Bennett 454 So. 2d 1165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Ditcharo 452 So. 2d 1201 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
They also cite several cases to show, first, that a witness may be examined as to the whole case and may be impeached by evidence not independently admissible, and second, that a witness' personal bias against a defendant is a proper means of impeachment
State v. Palmer 447 So. 2d 1159 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
State v. Sweeney 443 So. 2d 522 La. 1983
State v. Cannon 441 So. 2d 1259 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Robinson, [ ]; State v. Lewis, 236 La.
Distinguished State v. Gomez 433 So. 2d 230 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
The defendant contends that the cases of Brady, are controlling.
State v. Chapman 410 So. 2d 689 La. 1982
2180 , 53 L.Ed.2d 227 ; (La.
State v. Motton 395 So. 2d 1337 La. 1981
State v. Bretz 394 So. 2d 245 La. 1981
State v. Dupre 369 So. 2d 1303 La. 1979
State v. Bailey 367 So. 2d 368 La. 1979
State v. DeCuir 364 So. 2d 946 La. 1978
cert, denied, 429 U.S. 833 , 97 S.Ct.
State v. Provost 352 So. 2d 661 La. 1977
State v. Henson 351 So. 2d 1169 La. 1977
[2] State v. Lewis, 236 La.
State v. Kellogg 350 So. 2d 656 La. 1977
State v. Jones 344 So. 2d 1036 La. 1977
State v. Brown 340 So. 2d 1306 La. 1976