Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Godeaux, 378 So. 2d 941.

39 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Gerald Manchip White La. 2025
State of Louisiana v. Jeremy D. Rainey La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2025
State of Louisiana v. Ladarrius R. Torbor La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana v. Arijoray Lavon Copeland La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
State of Louisiana v. Bengy R. Cooley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
State v. Cooley 165 So. 3d 1237 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State ex rel. E.D.C. 903 So. 2d 571 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
State v. Brooks 756 So. 2d 336 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
App. 3 Cir.), writ denied, this court considered a chain of custody objection: (La.
State v. President 715 So. 2d 745 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
3 Cir.), writ denied, we held: in examining the requirements set forth for the *755 admissibility of demonstrative evidence, stated: "To admit demonstrative evidence at trial the law requires that the object be identified.
State v. Neeley 704 So. 2d 443 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
14:10(2); rehearing denied January 28, 1980.
State v. Washington 705 So. 2d 254 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
14:10(2); rehearing denied Jan.
State v. Washington 705 So. 2d 254 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
14:10(2); rehearing denied Jan.
State v. Warren 712 So. 2d 500 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
14:10(2); rehearing denied 1980.
Wells v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 573 So. 2d 223 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
in contending that it proved by a preponderance of evidence that the vial of blood was that taken from the defendant.
State v. Hayes 561 So. 2d 184 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
State v. Frank 549 So. 2d 401 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Jones 539 So. 2d 866 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
State v. Blancaneaux 535 So. 2d 1341 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
State v. Jackson 526 So. 2d 1261 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
State v. Jones 492 So. 2d 1261 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
14:95.1 requires only general criminal intent, which is shown by the very doing of the acts which have been declared criminal.
State v. Thompson 489 So. 2d 1364 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Macaluso 473 So. 2d 375 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
” Here, considering all of the testimony, including appellant’s, it was more probable than not that the Baretta pistol was the same one recovered by Ducos from Macaluso’s truck and the one used in the assaults.
State v. Rome 469 So. 2d 1150 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
State v. Smith 463 So. 2d 1003 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
in examining the requirements set forth for the admissibility of demonstrative evidence, stated: "To admit demonstrative evidence at trial the law requires that the object be identified.
State v. Lively 457 So. 2d 1236 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Hills 451 So. 2d 1346 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
14:10(2); rehearing denied 1980.
State v. Taylor 448 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Adams 446 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
State v. Celestine 443 So. 2d 1091 La. 1983
in contending that it proved by a preponderance of evidence that the vial of blood was that taken from the defendant.
State v. Russell 434 So. 2d 460 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
State v. Vaughn 431 So. 2d 763 La. 1983
State v. Shapiro 431 So. 2d 372 La. 1983
State v. Simmons 443 So. 2d 512 La. 1983
State v. McCabe 420 So. 2d 955 La. 1982
State v. Moore 419 So. 2d 963 La. 1982
State v. Vaccaro 411 So. 2d 415 La. 1982
State v. Davis 411 So. 2d 434 La. 1982
State v. Edmond 399 So. 2d 187 La. 1981
State v. Green 390 So. 2d 1253 La. 1980