DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Catanese, 368 So. 2d 975.

69 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Tyler N. Derochowski La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2025
  • State of Louisiana v. Jarvis Ballard La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
  • State of Louisiana Versus Adam Littleton La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2019
  • State v. Prejean 24 So. 3d 1033 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • State v. Franklin 956 So. 2d 823 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    1981); State v. Weatherspoon, supra .
  • State v. Blank 955 So. 2d 90 La. 2007
    While defendant concedes that admission of the results of the polygraph were inadmissible, and its progeny infra, he claims that the state successfully shielded the jury from reviewing the coercive circumstances precipitating his confession by having the examiner conduct the interrogation.
  • State v. Weatherspoon 948 So. 2d 215 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
    1768 , 76 L.Ed.2d 342 (1983)
  • Cook v. State, Department of Public Safety & Corrections, Office of State Police 928 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    I write separately to state that I do not join in the establishment of any “bright line”
  • Franklin v. Franklin 928 So. 2d 90 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    Wingfield, 01-2668 at pp. 9-10, 835 So.2d at 796; Fussell , 99-0194 at p. 3, 765 So.2d at 375
  • State of Louisiana v. David Lee Leger La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    1768, 76 L.Ed.2d 342 (1983)
  • State v. Leger 907 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    1768 , 76 L.Ed.2d 342 (1983)
  • State v. Legrand 864 So. 2d 89 La. 2004
    1768 , 76 L.Ed.2d 342 (1983)
  • State v. Chauvin 846 So. 2d 697 La. 2003
    art. 702 and its federal counterpart, which had already provided similar guidelines for the admission of scientific evidence, persuaded this Court to adopt Daubert's requirement that, in order for technical or scientific expert testimony to be admissible under La.Code Evid.
  • Davis v. American Home Products Corp. 844 So. 2d 242 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    this court rejected Frye's "general acceptance" in the scientific community as the only test for the admissibility of polygraph results in criminal trials.
  • Wingfield v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 835 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Fussell , 99-0194 at p. 3, 765 So.2d at 375
  • Wingfield v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. 835 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Fussell , 99-0194 at p. 3, 765 So.2d at 375
  • Evans v. DeRidder Mun. Fire 815 So. 2d 61 La. 2002
    (holding that "[a]lthough we conclude that polygraph evidence is inadmissible in criminal trials, the reasons for our decision do not prevent its introduction in post trial proceedings").
  • State v. Cowart 815 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    1768 , 76 L.Ed.2d 342 (1983)
  • Evans v. DeRidder Mun. Fire & Police Civil Service Bd. 789 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
  • State v. Cosey 779 So. 2d 675 La. 2000
    1768 , 76 L.Ed.2d 342 (1983); (La.
  • Rogers v. Horseshoe Entertainment 766 So. 2d 595 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
  • Fussell v. Roadrunner Towing and Recovery 765 So. 2d 373 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • State v. Evans 734 So. 2d 866 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
  • State v. Brooks 734 So. 2d 1232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    981-982 (La.1979), and explained the trial judge, in ruling on the admissibility of scientific evidence, performs a "gatekeeping function in balancing the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect."
  • Perret v. Nelson 722 So. 2d 1118 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    State v. Quatrevingt, supra, 670 So.2d at 204 , citing Foret, supra, -79 (La.1979).
  • State v. Robertson 712 So. 2d 8 La. 1998
  • State v. Schmidt 699 So. 2d 448 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    In doing so, which had established standards different from those of Frye .
  • State v. Quatrevingt 670 So. 2d 197 La. 1996
    this Court rejected Frye's "general acceptance" test in the scientific community as the only test for the admissibility of polygraph results in criminal trials.
  • State v. Payn 659 So. 2d 527 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
  • State v. Foret 628 So. 2d 1116 La. 1993
    this court rejected Frye 's "general acceptance" in the scientific community as the only test for the admissibility of polygraph results in criminal trials.
  • State v. Charles 617 So. 2d 895 La. 1993
  • Hines v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. 613 So. 2d 646 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
  • State v. Quatrevingt 617 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
  • State v. Charles 602 So. 2d 15 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
  • American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co. v. General Motors Corp. 582 So. 2d 934 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
    3rd Cir.1988), writ denied
  • State v. Semien 566 So. 2d 1032 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
  • State v. Arnold 533 So. 2d 1311 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    1232 , 28 L.Ed.2d 531 (1971) ]
  • State v. Parker 530 So. 2d 111 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
    See State v. Hocum, supra; and citations therein.
  • State v. Graham 513 So. 2d 419 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Gibson 505 So. 2d 237 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    the Supreme Court stated that the reasons for excluding polygraph evidence during trial does not militate against its introduction, within the trial judge's discretion, in post-trial proceeding, where guilt and innocence is not an issue and where evidence is reliable and will aid in the decision.
  • State v. Mills 505 So. 2d 933 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • Rebouche v. Anderson 505 So. 2d 808 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    In Louisiana, held that the results of polygraph examinations are inadmissible in criminal trials.
  • State v. Landry 502 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Brown 497 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
  • State v. Free 493 So. 2d 781 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    In his remaining assignment of error, defendant, argues that the trial court erred in allowing the state to introduce the testimony of the voice identification expert, Sgt.
  • State v. Loyd 489 So. 2d 898 La. 1986
  • State v. Moore 490 So. 2d 588 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    I agree with the majority views expressed herein and offer the following additional comments.
  • State v. Segura 464 So. 2d 1116 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    reasoned that lie detector and P.S.E.
  • State v. Wilson 463 So. 2d 655 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    But we cannot accept that evidence as probative of the truth of defendant’s trial-time testimony because that would wholly defeat the rule that polygraph evidence is not admissible in criminal trials
  • State v. Hocum 456 So. 2d 602 La. 1984