Cited by

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

84 citing documents.

State v. Davis 818 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. McCullough 774 So. 2d 1105 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
As authority for this charge, (La.
State v. Lormand 771 So. 2d 734 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
a case decided before the adoption of the Louisiana Code of Evidence.
State v. Butler 714 So. 2d 877 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
(collecting cases); -56 (La.1985).
State v. Carvis Webb. State of Louisiana V. Dalmaus Jacobs. 704 So. 2d 240 La. 1997
See State v. Vale, 95-1230, p. 4, (“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.”); (“[E]xposure of a witness’ motivation in testifying is a proper right of cross-examination.”).
State v. Schexnayder 685 So. 2d 357 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
(collecting cases); -56 (La.1985).
State v. Vale 666 So. 2d 1070 La. 1996
(collecting cases); -56 (La.1985).
Distinguished State v. Vale 650 So. 2d 379 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
1 ipThe cases submitted by appellants, are factually distinguishable from Bergeron’s situation.
State v. Sherman 630 So. 2d 321 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
State v. Williams 618 So. 2d 606 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
1st Cir.1989), writ denied
State v. Smith 604 So. 2d 995 La. 1992
State v. Smith 604 So. 2d 995 La. 1992
State v. Smith 591 So. 2d 1219 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
A where the victim was the only State's witness.
State v. Landry 583 So. 2d 911 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
State v. James 569 So. 2d 135 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Bennett 550 So. 2d 201 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Brumfield 546 So. 2d 1241 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
wherein the court observed as follows: Defendant's attempted cross-examination about the arrest was not for the purpose of impeaching the witness' general credibilitythe arrest was not presented as proof that the witness is not credible because he has an arrest record.
State v. Tassin 536 So. 2d 402 La. 1988
State v. Lanerie 527 So. 2d 1146 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Landry 524 So. 2d 1261 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
State v. Anderson 517 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Rosales 498 So. 2d 66 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
State v. Harrison 484 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Jenkins 476 So. 2d 475 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
wherein the Court observed as follows: Defendant's attempted cross-examination about the arrest was not for the purpose of impeaching the witness' general credibilitythe arrest was not presented as proof that the witness is not credible because he has an arrest record.
State v. Nash 475 So. 2d 752 La. 1985
State v. Ashworth 469 So. 2d 1198 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
1st Cir.1983); State v. Lewis, supra.
State v. Brown 467 So. 2d 1151 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Rankin 465 So. 2d 679 La. 1985
State v. Rankin 454 So. 2d 880 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
In State v, Brady, the defense counsel attempted to cross-examine the victim of the alleged crime about whether he had “made a deal with the D .A.”.
State v. Bennett 454 So. 2d 1165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Roberson 448 So. 2d 789 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Cannon 441 So. 2d 1259 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed a lower court’s ruling that the defendant could not question a witness as to whether or not he had “made a deal” with the D.A.
State v. Paul 439 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Gomez 433 So. 2d 230 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
appears the following: The right to cross-examine witnesses concerning their interest in a case is not only a statutory right, it is a right protected by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 16 of the Louisiana Constitution.