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. May, 339 So. 2d 764.

79 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Sidney Myers La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2025
    2164, 60 L.Ed.2d 1046 (1979); ” State v. Brewer, 38,515, pp. 9–10 (La.App.
  • State v. McBride 239 So. 3d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    1979) ; State v. May , (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Ronald Pete La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    ” State v. Addison, 00-1730, p. 8 (La.App 5 Cir. 5/16/01)
  • State v. Pete 134 So. 3d 196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    ” State v. Addison, 00-1730, p. 8 (La.App.
  • State v. Celestine 131 So. 3d 947 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    State v. Kaufman, supra [ ]; (recognizing the stated rule but finding that the prosecutor’s comment did not imply to the jury that he had personal knowledge of facts not presented to them indicating the defendant’s guilt).
  • State v. Allen 126 So. 3d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    State v. Kaufman, [ ]; (recognizing the stated rule but finding that the prosecutor’s comment did not imply to the jury that he had personal knowledge of facts not presented to them indicating the defendant’s guilt)....
  • State of Louisiana v. Charles Edward Grace La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    In support of this argument
  • State v. Grace 61 So. 3d 812 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    In support of this argument
  • State of Louisiana v. Jonathan Edward Boyer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    1604, 158 L.Ed.2d 248; State v. Matassa, 222 La.
  • State v. Boyer 56 So. 3d 1119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    1604 , 158 L.Ed.2d 248 ; State v. Matassa, 222 La.
  • State v. Hollins 15 So. 3d 69 La. 2009
    1604 , 158 L.Ed.2d 248 ; State v. Matassa, 222 La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Nathan Stringer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    ” State v. Addison, 00-1730, p. 8 (La.App 5 Cir. 5/16/01)
  • State v. Stringer 949 So. 2d 464 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • State v. Riley 941 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
    State v. Kaufman, [ ]; (recognizing the stated rule but finding that the prosecutor's comment did not imply to the jury that he had personal knowledge of facts not presented to them indicating the defendant's guilt).
  • State of Louisiana v. Robert S. Willis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    the prosecutor made the following comments in closing argument: “Now, so far as I’m concerned, after hearing that evidence, he is guilty, and there is no question in my mind about it.” Id.
  • State v. Willis 915 So. 2d 365 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
  • State v. Bonner 895 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
    State v. Rabun, 38,655 (La.App.2d Cir.08/18/04), , citing
  • State v. Brewer 880 So. 2d 1005 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
    2164 , 60 L.Ed.2d 1046 (1979)
  • State v. Rabun 880 So. 2d 184 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
    A conviction can be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of a purported accomplice, although the jury “should be instructed to treat such testimony with great caution.”
  • State v. Tate 851 So. 2d 921 La. 2003
    [2] see also State v. Howard, 98-0064, p. 14 (La.4/23/99), .
  • State v. Page 837 So. 2d 165 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
  • State v. Zeno 811 So. 2d 1222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    ” State v. Addison, 00-1730, p. 8 (La.App 5 Cir. 5/16/01); .
  • State v. Johnson 817 So. 2d 120 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
  • State v. Addison 788 So. 2d 608 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
  • State v. McCullough 774 So. 2d 1105 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    Prior to closing arguments, as support for using the foregoing charges.
  • State v. Howard 751 So. 2d 783 La. 1999
  • State v. Jackson 726 So. 2d 1061 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    United States v. Lee, 165 U.S.App.
  • State v. Dunn 709 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    United States v. Lee, 165 U.S.App.
  • State v. Styles 692 So. 2d 1222 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
    United States v. Lee, 506 F.2d 111 (D.C.Cir.1974), cert.
  • State v. Green 691 So. 2d 1273 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
  • State v. Dugar 643 So. 2d 870 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    In any event, noted that it is only when the state's case relies upon the uncorroborated testimony of a purported accomplice, the trial judge should instruct the jury to treat such testimony with great caution.
  • State v. Smith 554 So. 2d 676 La. 1989
    State v. Kaufman, supra; (recognizing the stated rule but finding that the prosecutor's comment did not imply to the jury that he had personal knowledge of facts not presented to them indicating the defendant's guilt); see also United States v. Diharce-Estrada, 526 F.2d 637 (5th Cir. 1976); United States v. Lamerson, 457 F.2d 371 (5
  • State v. Floyd 544 So. 2d 616 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Holland 544 So. 2d 461 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized that as a general principle of law, a conviction can be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of a purported accomplice, although the jury should be instructed to treat such testimony with great caution.
  • State v. Frith 499 So. 2d 474 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    for the proposition that although a conviction can be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of a purported accomplice, the jury should be instructed to treat such testimony with great caution.
  • State v. Williams 497 So. 2d 333 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • State v. Sexton 477 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Dunn 454 So. 2d 1229 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Pettaway 450 So. 2d 1345 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Wilkerson 448 So. 2d 1355 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Swartz 444 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Hebert 444 So. 2d 228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    State v. Matassa, 222 La.
  • State v. Willis 438 So. 2d 605 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Walker 432 So. 2d 1057 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    held that Brady can encompass evidence which is materially favorable to the accused as impeaching evidence.
  • State v. Hooks 421 So. 2d 880 La. 1983
    2392 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976); adopted in Louisiana, State v. Washington, supra
  • State v. Ates 418 So. 2d 1326 La. 1982
  • State v. Lane 414 So. 2d 1223 La. 1982
  • State v. Hennigan 404 So. 2d 222 La. 1981
    State v. Rogers, supra, at 1313 .
  • State v. Schaffner 398 So. 2d 1032 La. 1981
    United States v. Lee, 506 F.2d 111 (D.C.Cir.
  • State v. Davenport 399 So. 2d 201 La. 1981
    Following Agurs , remanded the case to the district court for an in camera inspection of a letter allegedly written by a co-indictee which the accused specifically requested, claiming that it contained a statement that he had not participated in the crime.