Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. James, 339 So. 2d 741.

30 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Demyron L. Skinner La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
the supreme court held the “self-serving, contradicted testimony of the defendant .
State Of Louisiana v. Randall Paul Burton La. 2021
State of Louisiana v. Clifford Williams La. 2020
The most notable limit that this court has placed on the “appreciable evidence” standard is that “[t]]he self-serving, contradicted testimony of a the defendant that [the victim] leaned toward a place the defendant believed he kept a gun is not appreciable evidence tending to 3 establish an overt act.” (La.
State v. Freeman 770 So. 2d 482 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
State v. Hampton 687 So. 2d 505 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
State v. Demery 679 So. 2d 518 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Similarly, the defendant sought to introduce evidence of the victim's dangerous character.
State v. Keller 592 So. 2d 1365 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
NOTES [1] -744 (La.1976), an indictment literally charged the defendant with the first degree murder of two victims.
State v. Owens 567 So. 2d 806 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
State v. Breaux 546 So. 2d 1352 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Dean v. Nunez 534 So. 2d 1282 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
State v. Ellzey 496 So. 2d 1090 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
State v. Bullock 476 So. 2d 1008 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Sanford 465 So. 2d 4 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
In its fact-finding and guilt determination function, it is entitled to the benefit of all the evidence.”
State v. Jones 451 So. 2d 1181 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Metoyer 427 So. 2d 93 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Edwards 420 So. 2d 663 La. 1982
State v. Smith 398 So. 2d 1090 La. 1981
State v. Green, supra; State v. Lee, supra; State v. Brown, 172 La.
State v. Hartman 388 So. 2d 688 La. 1980
State v. Liner 373 So. 2d 121 La. 1979
State v. Ford 368 So. 2d 1074 La. 1979
State v. Green, supra; State v. Lee, supra; State v. Brown, 172 La.
State v. Procell 365 So. 2d 484 La. 1978
State v. Lovett 359 So. 2d 163 La. 1978
State v. Drew 360 So. 2d 500 La. 1978
State v. Western 355 So. 2d 1314 La. 1978
In State v. James, La., (1976), we treated a similar situation as follows: "The general rule is that the trial jury is entitled to view photographic evidence introduced during the trial.
State v. Denney 352 So. 2d 204 La. 1977
State v. Brent 347 So. 2d 1112 La. 1977
State v. King 347 So. 2d 1108 La. 1977
State v. Green, supra; State v. Lee, supra; State v. Brown, 172 La.
State v. George 346 So. 2d 694 La. 1977
State v. Palmer 344 So. 2d 964 La. 1977
State v. Sepulvado 342 So. 2d 630 La. 1977