Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Weedon, 342 So. 2d 642.

41 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Trae Williams La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2019
Admission in this instance is “based upon the expedient rule sometimes relied upon in homicide cases that ‘conduct or declarations of the decedent shortly before his killing may sometimes be admissible as tending to show the immediately antecedent circumstances explanatory of the killing and connecting the accused with it.’ ” quoting State v. Raymond, 258 La.
State of Louisiana v. Marcus Donte Reed 200 So. 3d 291 La. 2016
State v. Magee 103 So. 3d 285 La. 2012
In drafting the article, the legislature borrowed from the approach taken in Alaska and added the phrase “offered to prove the declarant’s then existing condition or his future action.” (An out-of-court declaration by one person is inadmissible to show what another person did).
State v. Wiltz 28 So. 3d 554 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
McCormick, supra, § 245.
Garza v. Delta Tau Delta Fraternity Nat. 948 So. 2d 84 La. 2006
(An out-of-court declaration by one person is inadmissible to show what another person did.)
State v. Leonard 910 So. 2d 977 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
5 Cir.1988), writ denied, grant of habeas corpus affirmed on other grounds, DiLosa v. Cain, 279 F.3d 259 (5th Cir. 2002), citing
Distinguished State v. Adams 897 So. 2d 629 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
are distinguishable from the instant case.
State v. Everidge 702 So. 2d 680 La. 1997
State v. Pipkins 628 So. 2d 1242 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
held such declarations are not admissible to show subsequent conduct of another.
State v. Hattaway 621 So. 2d 796 La. 1993
(Defendant's statutory right to procure and confer with counsel attaches at post-arrest, pre-accusatory line-up); (La.
State v. Gladney 577 So. 2d 1179 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
State v. Dietrich 567 So. 2d 623 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Brown 562 So. 2d 868 La. 1990
State v. Brown 549 So. 2d 323 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
1 In conclusion, defendant argues that, the statement was clearly inadmissible hearsay, which allowed the jury to infer that he had a motive for killing the victim.
State v. Volquardts 540 So. 2d 497 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Riley 532 So. 2d 1174 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. DiLosa 529 So. 2d 14 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
State v. Doss 522 So. 2d 1274 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
State v. Schrader 518 So. 2d 1024 La. 1988
State v. Burns 504 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
See State v. Weedon, supra [ ].
State v. Jones 478 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
State v. Martin 458 So. 2d 454 La. 1984
McCormick, supra, section 245.
State v. Green 443 So. 2d 531 La. 1983
State v. Harper 430 So. 2d 627 La. 1983
State v. Chaney 423 So. 2d 1092 La. 1982
State v. Tonubbee 420 So. 2d 126 La. 1982
State v. Mitchell 421 So. 2d 851 La. 1982
in which this court suppressed statements elicited from the defendant during the booking process after officers explicitly agreed with defense counsel not to question defendant about the offense.
State v. Edwards 420 So. 2d 663 La. 1982
1 , (1971); 37 La.L.Rev.
State v. Trevathan 414 So. 2d 316 La. 1982
State v. Matthews 408 So. 2d 1274 La. 1982
State v. West 408 So. 2d 1114 La. 1982
State v. Spell 399 So. 2d 551 La. 1981
State v. Reed 390 So. 2d 1314 La. 1980
State v. Doze 384 So. 2d 351 La. 1980
State v. Baldwin 388 So. 2d 664 La. 1980
State v. Tague 381 So. 2d 507 La. 1980
State v. Johnson 381 So. 2d 436 La. 1980
State v. Albert 381 So. 2d 424 La. 1980
State v. Sheppard 371 So. 2d 1135 La. 1979
State v. Alexander 365 So. 2d 1337 La. 1978
See: Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 , , 51 L.Ed.2d 424 (1977), noted 38 La.L.Rev.
State v. Hebert 356 So. 2d 991 La. 1978

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by