Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Hills, 379 So. 2d 740.

26 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. William Felix Vail La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
-44 (La.1980); -94 (La.1976).
State v. Vail 236 So. 3d 644 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Hills , , 743-44 (La.1980) ; see also State v. Pearson , , 835 (La.1976) ; State v. Ghoram , , 93-94 (La.
State v. Patterson 191 So. 3d 620 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
This court has noted that “[e]ven when the witness is determined to be unavailable, the use of the prior testimony must not violate the defendant’s right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment.” Johnson , 13-0343 at pp. 18-19, 151 So.3d at 695 (-44 (La.1980); ).
State v. Johnson 151 So. 3d 683 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Carper 107 So. 3d 118 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
State v. Seals 83 So. 3d 285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State of Louisiana v. Jonathan Edward Boyer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Boyer 56 So. 3d 1119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Johnson 33 So. 3d 328 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Williams 833 So. 2d 497 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
State v. Robinson, supra , -744 (La.1980).
State v. Randall 830 So. 2d 1062 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
State v. Robinson 811 So. 2d 967 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
1 Indeed, when discussing the admissibility of a videotape of a witness’ testimony at a preliminary hearing as per art. 295, -744 (La.1980), stated: It is well settled that, before testimony given at a prior hearing may be introduced in evidence at a subsequent trial, without offending the confrontation and cross-examination clauses of the federal and state constitutions, certain conditions must be met: (1) defendant must have been repr
State v. Vincent 806 So. 2d 992 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
State v. Ball 824 So. 2d 1089 La. 2002
State v. Jones 791 So. 2d 622 La. 2001
State v. Fuller 759 So. 2d 104 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
State v. Woodberry 686 So. 2d 984 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
State v. Johnson 665 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
State v. Nicholas 548 So. 2d 1278 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
The Court, -44 (La.1980), set forth five conditions which must be met before the transcript of a prior proceeding may be used as evidence at a subsequent *1280 trial without offending constitutional guarantees: (1)defendant must have been represented by counsel at the earlier hearing; (2) the witness testified under oath; (3
State v. Hall 549 So. 2d 373 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
State v. Theard 527 So. 2d 393 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
the court, set forth five conditions which must be met before a transcript of a prior hearing may be introduced as evidence at a subsequent trial: (1) the defendant must have been represented by counsel at the earlier hearing; (2) the witness testified under oath; (3) the witness was cross-examined or else there was a
State v. Necaise 466 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State v. Citizen 431 So. 2d 1051 La. 1983
nder oath; (3) the witness was cross-examined or else there was a valid waiver of the right to cross-examination; (4) at the time of the trial, the witness (whether out of state or not) is unavailable or unable to testify; and (5) the state has made a good faith diligent effort to obtain the presence of the witness, including by its out-of-state subpoena powers where appropriate.” at 743-744 (La., 1980).
State v. Oliver 430 So. 2d 650 La. 1983
and cases cited therein.
State v. Vaughn 431 So. 2d 358 La. 1983
[5] Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 921
State v. Robinson 423 So. 2d 1053 La. 1982
This Court, at 743-44 (La.1980), in discussing the admission of such testimony, stated: It is well settled that, before testimony given at a prior hearing may be introduced in evidence at a subsequent trial, without offending the confrontation and cross-examination clauses of the federal and state constitutions, certain condition