Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. King, 347 So. 2d 1108.

25 citing documents.

State v. Thomas 7 So. 3d 838 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
his victim's criminal record was relevant to the strategy of self-defense.
State Ex Rel. Taylor v. Whitley 606 So. 2d 1292 La. 1992
State v. Johnson 553 So. 2d 865 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
See State v. Edwards, supra ; *872 (La.
State v. Del Carpio 537 So. 2d 377 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Bullock 476 So. 2d 1008 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Willis 459 So. 2d 221 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
15:482 provides: “In the absence of evidence of hostile demonstration or of overt act on the part of the person slain or injured, evidence of his dangerous character or of his threats against accused is not admissible.” defined “overt act” as follows: “Overt act in this context [LSA-R.S.
State v. Jones 451 So. 2d 1181 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Harmon 448 So. 2d 264 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Volpe 447 So. 2d 48 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Collins 432 So. 2d 369 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Jackson, 419 So.2d at 427 ; State *372 v. King
State v. Gipson 427 So. 2d 1293 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
State v. Chaisson 425 So. 2d 745 La. 1983
State v. Cavalier 421 So. 2d 892 La. 1982
State v. Edwards 420 So. 2d 663 La. 1982
State v. Jackson 419 So. 2d 425 La. 1982
State v. Sam 412 So. 2d 1082 La. 1982
1111 n.3 (La.1977), this court observed: "With respect to the admissibility of the decedent's criminal record, the traditional rule is that character evidence is established by general reputation, not by specific acts.
State v. Smith 398 So. 2d 1090 La. 1981
15:482 provides: “In the absence of evidence of hostile demonstration or of overt act on the part of the person slain or injured, evidence of his dangerous character or of his threats against accused is not admissible.” this court has repeatedly held that: “[ejvidence of prior threats made by the victim .
State v. Kent 371 So. 2d 1319 La. 1979
1978), faced with the issue of whether the Dino requirements would be given retroactive effect, testing whether the Dino rule goes to the very integrity of the fact-finding process (and thus renders prospective application insufficient).
State v. Coleman 369 So. 2d 1286 La. 1979
State v. Ford 368 So. 2d 1074 La. 1979
this Court has repeatedly held that "[e]vidence of prior threats made by the victim .
State v. Collum 365 So. 2d 1272 La. 1979
took the position that the balancing process of the criteria applied in Johnson v. New Jersey would be explored only where a newly announced rule does not go to the very integrity of the fact-finding process.
State v. Swift 363 So. 2d 499 La. 1978
State v. Bernard 358 So. 2d 1268 La. 1978
State v. Denney 352 So. 2d 204 La. 1977
State v. Brent 347 So. 2d 1112 La. 1977