Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Murray, 375 So. 2d 80.

62 citing documents.

State v. McBride 239 So. 3d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Carter 128 So. 3d 1108 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
art. 786; -83 (La.1979).
State of Louisiana v. Eric Joseph Smith La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Smith 58 So. 3d 964 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State of Louisiana v. Jonathan Edward Boyer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
(citing U.S. v. Lee, 506 F.2d 111 (D.C.Cir.1974); U.S. v. Clark, 480 F.2d 1249 (5th Cir. (Ga.)
State v. Boyer 56 So. 3d 1119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
1981); (citing U.S. v. Lee, 506 F.2d 111 (D.C.Cir.1974); U.S. v. Clark, 480 F.2d 1249 (5th Cir.(Ga.)
State v. Hollins 15 So. 3d 69 La. 2009
(citing U.S. v. Lee, 506 F.2d 111 (D.C.Cir.1974); 3 U.S. v. Clark, 480 F.2d 51249 (5th Cir.(Ga.)
State v. Rabun 880 So. 2d 184 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
State v. Moore 877 So. 2d 1027 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
State v. Tate 851 So. 2d 921 La. 2003
State v. Hayes 806 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Clark 803 So. 2d 280 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
State v. McCullough 774 So. 2d 1105 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
Prior to closing arguments, as support for using the foregoing charges.
State v. Howard 751 So. 2d 783 La. 1999
State v. Castleberry 758 So. 2d 749 La. 1999
State v. Jackson 726 So. 2d 1061 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
State v. Dunn 709 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
State v. Johnson 706 So. 2d 468 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
State v. Styles 692 So. 2d 1222 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
United States v. Lee, 506 F.2d 111 (D.C.Cir.1974), cert.
State v. Durham 673 So. 2d 1103 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
State v. Thompson 665 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
727 , 58 L.Ed.2d 708 (1978); (La.App.
State v. Dugar 643 So. 2d 870 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
In any event, noted that it is only when the state's case relies upon the uncorroborated testimony of a purported accomplice, the trial judge should instruct the jury to treat such testimony with great caution.
State v. Barker 628 So. 2d 168 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
State v. Cutwright 626 So. 2d 780 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
State v. Wright 618 So. 2d 540 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
State v. Watts 596 So. 2d 306 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
State v. Marler 560 So. 2d 537 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Walker 558 So. 2d 1346 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
State v. Livings 548 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Perkins 539 So. 2d 100 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
State v. Douget 507 So. 2d 283 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
State v. Frith 499 So. 2d 474 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
for the proposition that although a conviction can be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of a purported accomplice, the jury should be instructed to treat such testimony with great caution.
State v. Thompson 495 So. 2d 328 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
State v. McClinton 492 So. 2d 162 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Walker 489 So. 2d 353 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Clouatre, 262 La.
State v. Lopez 484 So. 2d 217 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
State v. Holbrook 476 So. 2d 582 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Parker, supra; State v. Robinson, supra; ” In the present case, defense counsel asked Mrs. Woodard whether she would hold it against the defendant if he did not take the witness stand and testify and she replied, “No. I don’t think I would.
State v. James 459 So. 2d 1299 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Nelson 459 So. 2d 510 La. 1984
State v. Lecompte, supra
State v. Dunn 454 So. 2d 1229 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Casimier 454 So. 2d 1199 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Swartz 444 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Delahoussaye 443 So. 2d 648 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Russell 434 So. 2d 460 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
State v. Clouatre, 262 La.
State v. James 431 So. 2d 399 La. 1983
State v. Parker , supra; State v. Robinson , supra
State v. Vaughn 431 So. 2d 358 La. 1983
[5] Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 921
State v. Johnson 426 So. 2d 95 La. 1983
State v. Williams 420 So. 2d 1116 La. 1982
Art. 786, : "The scope of voir dire examination is within the sound discretion of the Trial Judge and his rulings will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion."
State v. Perry 420 So. 2d 139 La. 1982
State v. Edwards 419 So. 2d 881 La. 1982
this court was faced with a similar situation: "In the instant case, in view of the testimony of two prospective jurors that under no circumstances would they believe the testimony of a homosexual, we are satisfied that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in sustaining the state's challenge for