Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Perniciaro, 374 So. 2d 1244.

19 citing documents.

State v. Carter 762 So. 2d 662 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. Arnold, supra; cert.
State v. Cavalier 701 So. 2d 949 La. 1997
At that point, defense counsel had no basis for asking the court to recess trial and to send jurors home for however long it would take to secure the Oschner records the defense had never seen, in anticipation that they had been kept and checked "with a degree of habit, system, regularity and continuity" sufficient to constitute reliable evidence despite their hearsay nature, see La.C.E.
State v. Smith 594 So. 2d 467 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
State v. Lubrano 563 So. 2d 847 La. 1990
State v. Cotton 511 So. 2d 1207 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State v. Guillory 502 So. 2d 258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
See also, ’ ” In the case sub judice, it was error for the trial judge to admit the arrest report.
State v. Vessell 450 So. 2d 938 La. 1984
State v. Smith 447 So. 2d 565 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Britton 443 So. 2d 6 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
Instead, we can only remand for a new trial without the inadmissible evidence, and other similar cases.
State v. Harvin 437 So. 2d 983 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
Appellant contends that the admission of the photocopy was improper where it was not shown the original was unavailable
State v. Stokes 433 So. 2d 96 La. 1983
State v. Armstead 432 So. 2d 837 La. 1983
State v. Arnold, supra ; cert.
State v. Parker 421 So. 2d 834 La. 1982
concerning the business record exception.
State v. Stucke 419 So. 2d 939 La. 1982
While scientific reports may be admissible at trial under the business record exception to the hearsay rule [ ], the trial court's exclusion of the evidence in this case was not erroneous.
State v. Phagans 412 So. 2d 580 La. 1982
And further, , (La.1979) holding: In view of the constitutional right of an accused to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him, U. S. Constitution Amendment VI; Louisiana Constitution 1974, Article I, § 16, and the statutory prohibition against hearsay evidence, except as provided by law, Louisiana Revised Statu
State v. Juengain 410 So. 2d 1099 La. 1982
we set forth the following requirements relative to the business records exception in a criminal case: In response to scholarly skepticism toward a broad regular course of business exception in criminal cases, which might violate a defendant's constitutional right to confrontation, see Pugh, The Work
State v. Jones 395 So. 2d 751 La. 1981
State v. Perniciaro, [ ] supra; State v. Monroe, [ ] supra; see Comment, Business Records in Louisiana as an Exception to the Hearsay Rule, 21 La.L.Rev.
State v. Foote 379 So. 2d 1058 La. 1980
The documents were admitted as a business records exception to the hearsay rule but there was no showing that the people making the records were unavailable to testify
State v. Vaughn 378 So. 2d 905 La. 1979
we made the following statement concerning hearsay evidence: "...