Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Henderson, 362 So. 2d 1358.
- State v. Ducksworth 496 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
- State v. Yochim 496 So. 2d 596 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
-
State v. Cameron
485 So. 2d 599
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
the court stated that in order for a statement to qualify under the excited utterance rule: "There must be an occurrence or event sufficiently startling to render normal reflective thought processes of an observer inoperative.
-
State v. Franks
483 So. 2d 224
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Code Crim.Proc.Ann., Art. 778 (West Supp.1980)
- State v. Hernandez 478 So. 2d 1326 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
- State v. Johnson 466 So. 2d 741 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
-
State v. Loyd
459 So. 2d 498
La. 1984
this Court, (La 1974), noted: "Where the necessity for the special charge arises after argument has begun it may be an abuse of discretion to refuse it...."
- State v. Keller 431 So. 2d 78 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
- State v. Hooks 421 So. 2d 880 La. 1983
- Rodrigue v. Matherne 416 So. 2d 577 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
- State v. Moore 414 So. 2d 340 La. 1982
- State v. Willie 410 So. 2d 1019 La. 1982
- State v. Taylor 410 So. 2d 224 La. 1982
-
State v. Krolowitz
407 So. 2d 1175
La. 1981
The factors that are to be considered in determining whether or not a as follows: "Many factors enter into determining whether in fact the second requirement has been fulfilled and whether a declarant was at the time of an offered statement under the influence of an exciting event.
- State v. MacK 403 So. 2d 8 La. 1981
- State v. Gatlin 396 So. 2d 1294 La. 1981
- State v. Brown 395 So. 2d 1301 La. 1981
- State v. Stovall 363 So. 2d 658 La. 1978