Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Williams, 346 So. 2d 181.

47 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Casey Michael Hatch La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana v. Timothy Teasley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana v. Timothy Aaron Dangerfield La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
State v. Dangerfield 214 So. 3d 1001 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Wyatt 83 So. 3d 131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Guillory 45 So. 3d 612 La. 2010
State v. TRUVIA 29 So. 3d 669 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Edwards 17 So. 3d 1037 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
State of Louisiana v. Calvin Joseph Coleman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. Coleman 976 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State of Louisiana v. Leon D. Fussell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
3 Cir. 1993), this court stated: “The often repeated purpose of the rule is to prevent witnesses from being influenced by prior testimony and to strengthen the role of cross-examination in developing the facts.”
State v. Fussell 941 So. 2d 109 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
State v. Juniors 915 So. 2d 291 La. 2005
State v. Lebreton 859 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
State v. Currie 812 So. 2d 128 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
State v. Morgan 779 So. 2d 17 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
State v. Perez 745 So. 2d 166 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Horne 679 So. 2d 953 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
State v. Ellis 677 So. 2d 617 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
State v. Silman 663 So. 2d 27 La. 1995
State v. Short 655 So. 2d 790 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Evins, 626 So.2d at 490 ().
State v. Martin 645 So. 2d 190 La. 1994
State v. Evins 626 So. 2d 480 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Dean v. Nunez 534 So. 2d 1282 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
State v. Wiley 513 So. 2d 849 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State v. Wade 508 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Williams 497 So. 2d 333 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
820 , 59 L.Ed.2d 25 (1979)
State v. Roux 487 So. 2d 1226 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
both the defense and state medical experts were permitted to refer freely to facts in medical reports which were not admitted into evidence.
State v. McKoin 485 So. 2d 215 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
State v. Jackson 482 So. 2d 807 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Jarreau 476 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Hebert 443 So. 2d 613 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
[4] This issue, being raised for the first time upon appeal, is not, therefore
State v. Johnson 438 So. 2d 1091 La. 1983
State v. Thompson 429 So. 2d 862 La. 1983
State v. Michel 422 So. 2d 1115 La. 1982
State v. Frith 412 So. 2d 1000 La. 1982
State v. Berry 391 So. 2d 406 La. 1980
1976) where the prosecutor urged the jury to consider the danger to their families if defendant was acquitted; where the district attorney pointed to several of the jurors and argued that the crime could have been committed on any one of them.
State v. Mead 377 So. 2d 79 La. 1979
State v. Andrews 369 So. 2d 1049 La. 1979
See, State v. Marse, 365 S.W.2d 1319 (La.1978); *1054
State v. Hayes 364 So. 2d 923 La. 1978
State v. Hammontree 363 So. 2d 1364 La. 1978
where this court stated: "Where, as here, verbal explanation would suffice, it is the favored mode of communication.
State v. Stovall 363 So. 2d 658 La. 1978
State v. Williams 359 So. 2d 115 La. 1978
La.Const.1974, Art. 5, § 5(C)
State v. King 355 So. 2d 1305 La. 1978
State v. Crochet 354 So. 2d 1288 La. 1977
State v. Dickerson 353 So. 2d 262 La. 1977
State v. Gray 351 So. 2d 448 La. 1977
While verbal explanation is preferred when sufficient ( ), we cannot say that the courtroom demonstration employed in this case was so prejudicial as to require reversal.