Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Marmillion, 339 So. 2d 788.
-
State Of Louisiana v. David Brown
La. 2022
However, defendant submitted “proposed jury instruction 2.” The trial court denied the charge as written, noting that “the proposed charge as to ‘great bodily harm’ is not considered to be accurate as to the law.” See, -796 (La.
- State of Louisiana Versus Teddy Chester La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2021
- State of Louisiana v. Simon Lewis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
- State v. McGuffie 962 So. 2d 1111 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
- State v. Clark 851 So. 2d 1055 La. 2003
- State v. Myers 839 So. 2d 1183 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
-
State v. Branch
759 So. 2d 31
La. 2000
("Once the state has met its traditional burden of proof ...
- State v. Lucky 755 So. 2d 845 La. 1999
- State v. Thibodeaux 750 So. 2d 916 La. 1999
-
State v. Smith
677 So. 2d 458
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
State v. Pravata, supra.
- State v. Campbell 673 So. 2d 1061 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
- State v. Armstrong 649 So. 2d 683 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
-
State v. Peterson
619 So. 2d 786
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
State *789 v. Marmillion
-
State v. Knowles
598 So. 2d 430
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
State v. Pravata, supra .
-
State v. Ondek
584 So. 2d 282
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
State v. Pravata, 522 So.2d at 614 .
- State v. Joseph 573 So. 2d 1248 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
- State v. Moore 568 So. 2d 612 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
- State v. Pravata 522 So. 2d 606 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
-
State v. Wiley
513 So. 2d 849
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State v. Domino, 234 La.
-
State v. Thomas
504 So. 2d 907
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: "The law does not require the production of nonexistent portions *917 of the confession or portions which cannot be recalled."
-
State v. Perry
502 So. 2d 543
La. 1986
Finally, even if the whole statement was not admitted into evidence, this Court has *556 treated a
-
State v. Oliver
499 So. 2d 295
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
the prosecution introduced the testimony of a police officer relating to an inculpatory statement made by the defendant.
- State v. Thomas 470 So. 2d 413 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
-
State v. Arnold
466 So. 2d 520
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
in which an officer also testified as to a statement, the court stated: "[I]n the absence of proof to the contrary, the fact that the purported statement of the accused as testified to by the investigating officer does not consist of a verbatim reiteration of the conversation between them, due to the witnes
- State v. Handley 453 So. 2d 1242 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
- State v. Guidry 450 So. 2d 50 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
- State v. Adams 446 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
- State v. Duncan 420 So. 2d 1105 La. 1982
- State v. Lefevre 419 So. 2d 862 La. 1982
- State v. MacK 403 So. 2d 8 La. 1981
- State v. Tompkins 403 So. 2d 644 La. 1981
- State v. Morgan 389 So. 2d 364 La. 1980
- State v. Poree 386 So. 2d 1331 La. 1980
- State v. Martin 376 So. 2d 300 La. 1979
- State v. Bonanno 373 So. 2d 1284 La. 1979
-
State v. Weber
364 So. 2d 952
La. 1978
Art. 652; State v. Marmillion, La., (1976).
-
State v. Burge
362 So. 2d 1371
La. 1978
See State v. *1378 Jackson, La., (1977); State v. Clark, La., (1976); State v. Marmillion, La., (1976).
- State v. King 355 So. 2d 1305 La. 1978
- State v. Hillman 353 So. 2d 1356 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
- State v. Rollins 351 So. 2d 470 La. 1977
-
State v. Schouest
351 So. 2d 462
La. 1977
1563 , 51 L.Ed.2d 782 (1977)
- State v. Charles 350 So. 2d 595 La. 1977
-
State v. Spears
350 So. 2d 603
La. 1977
State v. Hodges, La., (1977); State v. Clark, La., (1976); State v. Marmillion, La., (1976); State v. Marks, La., (1976).
-
State v. Hodges
349 So. 2d 250
La. 1977
State v. Marmillion, La., (1976); State v. Clark, La., (1976); State v. Marks, La., (1976).
- State v. George 346 So. 2d 694 La. 1977
-
State v. Jackson
344 So. 2d 961
La. 1977
In State v. Marmillion, La., (La.
-
State v. Sepulvado
342 So. 2d 630
La. 1977
this Court had occasion to pass upon a similar contention where the witness could not recall everything which was said at the time the inculpatory statement was made.