Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Brady, 381 So. 2d 819.

84 citing documents.

Keith Ezidore Versus Timothy Hooper, Warden La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2025
5/11/11), -86, the supreme court held: [T]o the extent exposure of a witness’s motivation is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross- examination, a witness’s “hope of knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.” (collecting cases); State v. Vale, 95–577, p. 4 (La.
State Ex Rel. Darrell J. Robinson v. Darrel Vannoy, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Angola, Louisiana La. 2024
As this court has explained: [T]o the extent exposure of a witness’s motivation is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross- examination, a witness’s “hope or knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.” (La.
State Ex Rel. Darrell J. Robinson v. Darrel Vannoy, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Angola, Louisiana La. 2024
State Of Louisiana v. Ollie Montrell Selders, Jr. La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
1; State u Brady, - 22 ( La.
State v. Mills 259 So. 3d 1045 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
art. 609.1 ; State v. Brady , , 821-22 (La.
State v. Harris 235 So. 3d 1354 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2017
State v. White 228 So. 3d 213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
See Rankin, 465 So.2d at 681 ; (La.
State of Louisiana v. Daniel Brandon Prince -Aka- Daniel B. Prince La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
The supreme court has explained: This Court has held on numerous occasions a witness’s “hope or knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.” -22 (La.1980); see also State v. Vale, 95-1230, p. 4 (La.1/26/96)
State v. Prince 211 So. 3d 481 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
The supreme court has explained: This Court has held on numerous occasions a witness’s “hope or knowledge that he will receive leniency from the *501 state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.” -22 (La.1980); see also State v. Vale, 95-1230, p. 4 (La.
State v. Neely 171 So. 3d 1022 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
a pending charge], affirmed by the court of ^appeal, conflicted with numerous decisions by this court that to the extent exposure of a witness’s motivation is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination, a witness’s “hope or knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.” (collecting cases); -56 (La.1985).
State of Louisiana v. Warren Ray Gautreaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State v. Gautreaux 153 So. 3d 1232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State of Louisiana v. Quint Mire La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Moreover, to the extent exposure of a witness‟s motivation is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination, a witness‟s “hope of knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.” (collecting cases); State v. Vale, 95–577, p. 4 (La.1/26/96)
State v. Mire 149 So. 3d 981 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Moreover, to-the extent exposure of a witness’s motivation is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination, a witness’s “hope of knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.” (collecting cases); State v. Vale, 95-577, p. 4 (La.1/26/96), .
State v. Mills 153 So. 3d 481 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See State v. Rankin, 465 So.2d at 681
State v. Hatfield 155 So. 3d 572 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
A witness’s “hope or knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.” Vale , 95-1230, p. 4, 666 So.2d at 1072 ().
State v. Blueford 137 So. 3d 54 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
It is also well-settled that “a witnessfs] hope or knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish bias or interest” (-22 (La.1980)), and that “a witness’s bias or interest may arise from arrests or pending criminal charges, or the prospect of prosecution, even when he has made no agreements with the state regarding his conduct.” State v. Vale, 95-1280 p. 4 (La.1/26/96), .
State v. Quinn 123 So. 3d 320 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
ial court’s ruling, affirmed by the court of appeal, conflicted with numerous decisions by this court that to the extent exposure of a witness’s motivation is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination, a witness’s “hope or knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.” (collecting cases); -56 (La.1985).
State v. Mills 120 So. 3d 802 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
a pending charge], affirmed by the court of appeal, conflicted with numerous decisions by this court that to the extent exposure of a witness’s motivation is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination, a witness’s “hope or knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.” (collecting cases); -56 (La.1985).
State of Louisiana v. Sean Bernard Newton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Moreover, to the extent exposure of a witness‘s motivation is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination, a witness‘s ―hope of knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.‖ (collecting cases); State v. Vale, 95-577, p. 4 (La.1/26/96)
State of Louisiana v. Nina Lambert Newton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Moreover, to the extent exposure of a witness‘s motivation is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination, a witness‘s ―hope of knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.‖ (collecting cases); State v. Vale, 95-577, p. 4 (La.1/26/96)
State v. Newton 129 So. 3d 25 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Moreover, to the extent exposure of a witness’s motivation is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination, a witness’s “hope of knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.” (collecting cases); State v. Vale, 95-577, p. 4 (La.1/26/96), .
State v. Newton 129 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Moreover, to the extent exposure of a witness’s motivation is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination, a witness’s “hope of knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.” (collecting cases); State v. Vale, 95-577, p. 4 (La.1/26/96), .
State v. Garcia 108 So. 3d 1 La. 2012
This Court has held on numerous occasions a witness’s “hope or knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.” -22 (La.1980); see also State v. Vale, 95-1230, p. 4 (La.1/26/96), .
State v. Hugle 104 So. 3d 598 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
“[A] witness’s ‘hope or knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.’ ” Vale , 95-1230, p. 4, 666 So.2d at 1072
State v. Dorsey 94 So. 3d 49 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
5 Cir. 4/26/11), (citing, ).
State v. Abdul 94 So. 3d 801 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
5 Cir. 4/26/11), , 592 9 ( ).
State v. Simmons 85 So. 3d 743 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
a pending charge], affirmed by the court of appeal, conflicted with numerous decisions by this court that to the extent exposure of a witness’s motivation is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination, a witness’s “hope or knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.” (La.
State v. Johnson 91 So. 3d 365 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
15 It is well-settled that a witness’s “hope or knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish bias or interest.” State v. Bowie, 2000-3344 (La.4/3/02), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Tracy Wayne Bowie La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Bowie 101 So. 3d 46 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Pleasant 66 So. 3d 51 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
a pending charge], affirmed by the court of appeal, conflict ed with numerous decisions by this court that to the extent exposure of a witness’s motivation is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination, a witness’s “hope or knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.” (collecting cases); -56 (La.1985).
State v. Sparks 68 So. 3d 435 La. 2011
Moreover, to the extent exposure of a witness’s motivation is a proper *486 and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination, a witness’s “hope of knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.” (collecting cases); State v. Vale, 95-577, p. 4 (La.1/26/96), .
State v. Wiley 68 So. 3d 583 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State of Louisiana v. Jonathan Edward Boyer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
y the court of appeal, conflicted with numerous decisions by this court that to the extent exposure of a witness’s motivation is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination, a witness’s “hope or knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.” (collecting cases); -56 (La.1985).
State v. Boyer 56 So. 3d 1119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
ial court’s ruling, affirmed by the court of appeal, conflicted with numerous decisions by this court that to the extent exposure of a witness’s motivation is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination, a witness’s “hope or knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.” (collecting cases); -56 (La.1985).
State ex rel. L.R. 52 So. 3d 944 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2010
A witness’s “hope or knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.” Vale , 95-1230, p. 4, 666 So.2d at 1072 ().
State v. Thompson 10 So. 3d 851 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
a pending charge], affirmed by the court of appeal, conflicted with numerous decisions by this court that to the extent exposure of a witness’s motivation is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination, a witness’s “hope or knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.” (collecting cases); -56 (La.1985).
State v. Bradley 995 So. 2d 1230 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
Vale, 95-1230, p. 4, 666 So.2d at 1072 , (La.
State v. Burbank 917 So. 2d 1082 La. 2005
-822 (La.1980); see also State v. Vale, 95-1230,(La.1/26/1996), .
State v. Burbank 893 So. 2d 109 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
State of Louisiana v. Kiley M. Williams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
(collecting cases); see also State v. Bowie, 00-3344, p. 9 (La.4/3/02), ("A defendant's right to demonstrate facts and circumstances which might influence the witness's perceptions or color his testimony, thereby lessening the weight the fact-finder might accord hi
State v. Williams 878 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
(collecting cases); see also State v. Bowie, 00-3344, p. 9 (La.4/3/02), ("A defendant's right to demonstrate facts and circumstances which might influence the witness's perceptions or color his testimony, thereby lessening the weight the fact-finder might accord his testimony, is guaranteed in
State v. Burbank 872 So. 2d 1049 La. 2004
State v. Bowens 871 So. 2d 1178 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
State v. Williams 844 So. 2d 832 La. 2003
(collecting cases); see also State v. Bowie, 00-3344, p. 9 (La.4/3/02), ("A defendant's right to demonstrate facts and circumstances which might influence the witness's perceptions or color his testimony, thereby lessening the weight the fact-finder might accord his testimony, is guaranteed in
State v. Bowie 813 So. 2d 377 La. 2002
State v. Marcantel 815 So. 2d 50 La. 2002
It is also well-settled that "a witness['s] hope or knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish bias or interest" ( -22 (La.1980)), and that "a witness's bias or interest may arise from arrests or pending criminal charges, or the prospect of prosecution, even when he has made no agreements with the state regarding his conduct."
State v. Burbank 811 So. 2d 1112 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
State v. Goodlow 801 So. 2d 1065 La. 2001
State v. Vale, 95-1230, p. 4 (La.1/26/96), (“A witness’s bias or interest may arise from arrests or pending criminal charges, or the prospect of prosecution, even when he has made no agreements with the state regarding his conduct.”)(-22 ); see also La.C.E.