DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Henderson, 362 So. 2d 1358.

68 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Corey Morgan La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
    App. 4 Cir. 6/3/15), ( (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Nicquarious Shukkor Hewitt La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2023
  • State of Louisiana v. Tremaine Williams La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
    App. 4 Cir. 6/3/15), (La.
  • State Of Louisiana v. Montrell Lee La. 2022
  • State v. Maize 223 So. 3d 633 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
  • State v. Jackson 191 So. 3d 63 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
  • State v. Bernard 171 So. 3d 1063 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    State v. Hester, 99-426, p. 14 (La.App.
  • State v. Kelly 164 So. 3d 866 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Falkins 146 So. 3d 838 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    “[T]he trial court must determine whether the interval between the event and the statement was long enough to permit a subsidence of emotional upset and a restoration of a reflective thought process.”
  • State of Louisiana v. M S La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • State v. Richardson 71 So. 3d 492 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
  • State v. Griffin 30 So. 3d 1039 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
  • State v. Ramirez 30 So. 3d 833 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    State v. Hester, 99-426, p. 14 (La.App.
  • State v. Harry 11 So. 3d 1244 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    1/12/01), (per curiam) (introduction of victim's properly admitted excited utterance does not violate the Confrontation Clause even when it constitutes the only direct evidence that the defendant committed the offense, -62 (La.
  • State v. Martin 913 So. 2d 863 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
  • State v. Taylor 850 So. 2d 5 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    See State v. Robinson, 2000-2284 (La.1/12/01), (introduction of victim’s properly admitted excited utterance does not violate the Confrontation Clause even when it constitutes the only direct evidence that the defendant committed the offense, ).
  • State v. Bagneris 830 So. 2d 1047 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
  • State v. Lee 826 So. 2d 616 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
  • State v. Lipscomb 823 So. 2d 425 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    the court held that when the trial judge entertained numerous oral requests and objections by the defendants, the judge had dispensed with the requirement that special charges be in writing and had tacitly agreed to consider such instructions as orally proposed.
  • State v. Simmons 817 So. 2d 16 La. 2002
    See State v. Haddad, 99-1272 (La.2/29/00)
  • State v. Vincent 806 So. 2d 992 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    602 (1897) (“In nearly all the cases in which *998 the question has arisen, evidence of other statements by the deceased inconsistent with his dying declarations has been received.”); (“[S]ince the dying declaration is in effect a testimonial statement ....
  • State v. White 802 So. 2d 869 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
  • State v. Jones 791 So. 2d 622 La. 2001
    602 (1897) ("In nearly all the cases in which the question has arisen, evidence of other statements by the deceased inconsistent with his dying declarations has been received."); ("[S]ince the dying declaration is in effect a testimonial statement ....
  • State v. Robinson 776 So. 2d 431 La. 2001
    Assuming that the state meets the foundational requirements for this firmly rooted hearsay exception, the introduction of a victim's excited utterance does not violate the Confrontation Clause even when it constitutes the only direct evidence that the defendant committed the offense.
  • State v. Lipscomb 770 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    the court held that when the trial judge entertained numerous oral requests and objections by the defendants, the judge had dispensed with the requirement that special charges be in writing and had tacitly agreed to consider such instructions as orally proposed.
  • State v. Dalton 759 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
  • State v. Haddad 767 So. 2d 682 La. 2000
    Additionally, this court held that when the trial judge entertained numerous oral requests and objections by the defendants, the judge had dispensed with the requirement that special charges be in writing and had tacitly agreed to consider such instructions as orally proposed.
  • State v. Duvall 747 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    a post -Harvey decision on the issue of whether the State had to furnish the conviction record of a victim where the State intended to introduce an out-of-court statement of the victim at trial (“Because the exited utterance also is in effect a testimonial statement, its introduction likewise should m
  • State v. Haley 709 So. 2d 992 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
  • State v. Henderson 672 So. 2d 1085 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
  • State v. Crawford 672 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
  • Jackson v. STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. INS. 665 So. 2d 661 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
  • State v. Etienne 649 So. 2d 1230 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
    the Louisiana Supreme Court outlined two requirements in determining the admissibility of evidence under the excited utterance hearsay exception, and delineated several factors to assist the courts in determining whether the requirements are met.
  • State v. Wilcoxon 639 So. 2d 385 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • State v. Wilcoxon 639 So. 2d 385 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • State v. Johnson 598 So. 2d 1288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    decided subsequent to the present defendant’s conviction, was also substantially similar to the one in the instant case.
  • State v. Prater 583 So. 2d 520 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
  • State v. Baker 582 So. 2d 1320 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
  • State v. Reaves 569 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
  • State v. Martin 562 So. 2d 468 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
  • State v. Holland 544 So. 2d 461 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Gremillion 542 So. 2d 1074 La. 1989
  • State v. Leonard 543 So. 2d 975 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
    the Louisiana Supreme Court outlined two requirements in determining the admissibility of evidence under the excited utterance hearsay exception, and delineated several factors to assist the courts in determining whether the requirements are met.
  • State v. Ferguson 540 So. 2d 1116 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • State v. Griffin 540 So. 2d 1144 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • State v. Lingle 514 So. 2d 171 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Brown 508 So. 2d 118 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
  • Allen v. Burrow 505 So. 2d 880 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Nolan 503 So. 2d 1186 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Burns 504 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987