Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Allien, 366 So. 2d 1308.

56 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Elvin Bryant Jinks, Jr. -Aka- Elvin Jinks La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
In this regard, Louisiana has followed the minority rule that such prior inconsistent statements “simply do not constitute substantive evidence.” cf. California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 164, 90 S.Ct.
State v. Jinks 267 So. 3d 688 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
1311 (La.1978) ; cf. California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 , 164, 90 S.Ct.
State v. Falkins 146 So. 3d 838 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
In addition, “[i]n the ordinary case, hearsay evidence not objected to constitutes substantive evidence.” State v. Dabney, 2002-0934, p. 6 (La.4/9/03), , .
State ex rel. L.V. 145 So. 3d 457 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
In support, wherein the “unobjected to hearsay which is the exclusive evidence of a defendant’s guilt of the crime or an essential element thereof, and where contradicted at trial by the sworn recantation |4of the out-of court de-clarant, is not evidence at all.” According to counsel, by carving out this exception the
State v. Cobb 144 So. 3d 17 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
art. 607D(2); State v. Cousin, 96-2973 (La.4/14/98), ; State v. Ray, 259 La.
State v. Magee 143 So. 3d 532 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See Lubrano, 563 So.2d at 849
State v. Jones 132 So. 3d 505 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
State v. Pham 119 So. 3d 202 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2013
In this regard, Louisiana has followed the minority rule that such prior inconsistent statements "simply do not constitute substantive evidence.” Cf. California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 164 , 90 S.Ct.
State of Louisiana v. Joseph Jones La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Jones 101 So. 3d 1083 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State Ex Rel. Dw 47 So. 3d 1048 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2010
I and State v. Cousin, 96-2973 (La.4/14/98), and the Allien-Cousin progeny with legislative changes in the hearsay rules.
State v. Givens 41 So. 3d 589 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
art. 607 D(2); State v. Williams, 258 La.
State v. Qualls 921 So. 2d 226 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
art. 607 D(2); State v. Williams, 258 La.
State v. Allen 913 So. 2d 788 La. 2005
State of Louisiana v. David Lee Leger La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
In this regard, Louisiana has followed the minority rule that such prior inconsistent statements “simply do not constitute substantive evidence.” cf. California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 164, 90 S.Ct.
State v. Leger 907 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
cf. California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 164 , 90 S.Ct.
State v. McGee 895 So. 2d 780 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
State v. Johnson , XXXX-XXXX (La.App.
State v. Burbank 893 So. 2d 109 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
State v. Owunta, 99-1569, p. 1 (La.5/26/00), .
State v. Dabney 842 So. 2d 326 La. 2003
("In the ordinary case hearsay evidence not objected to constitutes substantive evidence.").
State v. Cho 831 So. 2d 433 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
(La.1978); State v. Stroughter, 97-1161, p. 6 (La.App.
State v. Noil 807 So. 2d 295 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
2504 , 135 L.Ed.2d 194 (1996)
State v. Marston 780 So. 2d 1058 La. 2001
State v. Jackson 783 So. 2d 482 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
If a defendant does not request such a limiting instruction, and none was asked for in this case, there is no error
State v. Hensley 781 So. 2d 834 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Owunta 761 So. 2d 528 La. 2000
State v. Branch 759 So. 2d 31 La. 2000
State v. Straughter 727 So. 2d 1283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
the Louisiana Supreme Court held that hearsay alone to which there is no objection may not be used to affirm a conviction attacked on sufficiency grounds.
State v. Johnson 726 So. 2d 1126 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Cousin 710 So. 2d 1065 La. 1998
State v. Williams, 258 La.
State v. Sanders 648 So. 2d 1272 La. 1994
State v. Corvers 646 So. 2d 1125 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
See also, State in the Interest of B.J., , 241 (La.App.
State v. Carey 628 So. 2d 27 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
Art. 607D(2); State v. Williams, 258 La.
State v. Silvio 623 So. 2d 1345 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
Art. 607 *1349 D(2); State v. Williams, 258 La.
State v. Jones 610 So. 2d 782 La. 1992
State v. Beach 610 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
State v. Lubrano 563 So. 2d 847 La. 1990
State v. Lott 535 So. 2d 963 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
State v. Jackson 526 So. 2d 1261 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
their confessions did not constitute substantive evidence and, as such, the State presented insufficient evidence to support the conviction.
State v. Bertram 517 So. 2d 1264 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
State v. Stewart 498 So. 2d 236 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Hernandez 488 So. 2d 972 La. 1986
In the ordinary case, hearsay evidence to which no objection is lodged constitutes substantive evidence, 79 A.L.R.2d 89 -957.
State v. Cheatwood 458 So. 2d 907 La. 1984
State v. White 450 So. 2d 648 La. 1984
State v. Williams 445 So. 2d 1171 La. 1984
State v. Henderson 444 So. 2d 751 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
held prior inconsistent statements inadmissible as evidence of the truth of their content, in the context of an attempt to prove defendant’s guilt by proving out-of-court statements by witnesses who in court concede they made the statement but deny their truth.
State v. Laprime 437 So. 2d 1124 La. 1983
State v. Hammonds 434 So. 2d 452 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
State v. Edwards 419 So. 2d 881 La. 1982
The state was not permitted to introduce the statement for the proof of its contents, but only for the purpose of attacking her trial testimony, which was not damaging to the defendant as she only denied any firsthand knowledge of facts that could incriminate him.
State v. Gould 395 So. 2d 647 La. 1981
Smith v. New Orleans Public Serv., Inc. 391 So. 2d 962 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
Nami v. Peninsular Fire Insurance Co. (4th Cir. 1978); State v. Allien