DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Molinario, 383 So. 2d 345.

52 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. William Gary Ryder La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
    This doctrine encompasses “not only spontaneous utterances and declarations made before and after commission of the crime but also testimony of witnesses and police officers pertaining to what they heard or observed before, during, or after the commission of the crime if the continuous chain of events is evident under the circumstances.”
  • State of Louisiana v. Jermaine Christopher Obrien AKA Jermaine Christopher O'Brien La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
    r after the commission of the crime, but also testimony of witnesses and police officers pertaining to what they heard or observed before, during, or after the commission of the crime if the continuous chain of events is evident under the circumstances.” State v. Colomb, 98–2813, pp. 3–4 (La.10/1/99), –1076 ().
  • State v. Obrien 242 So. 3d 1254 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    10/1/99), , 1075-1076 ( , 350 (La.1980) ).
  • State v. Jones 182 So. 3d 251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    ncompasses "not only spontaneous utterances and declarations made before and after commission of the crime but also testimony of witnesses and police officers pertaining to what they heard or observed before, during, or after the commission of the crime if the continuous chain of events is evident under the circumstances.” Colomb , 98-2813, p. 3, 747 So.2d at 1075-76
  • State v. Falkins 146 So. 3d 838 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    utterances and declarations made before or after the commission of the crime, but also testimony of witnesses and police officers pertaining to what they heard or observed before, during, or after the commission of the crime if the continuous chain of events is evident under the circumstances.” State v. Colomb, 98-2813, pp. 3-4 (La.10/1/99), -1076 ().
  • State v. Daniels 128 So. 3d 349 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State v. Hamdan 112 So. 3d 812 La. 2013
    Also pertinent to the evaluation of predicate federal offenses in a habitual offender proceeding are this court’s ce rt.
  • State v. Marlowe 81 So. 3d 944 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    This doctrine encompasses “not only spontaneous utterances and declarations made before and after commission of the crime but also testimony *979 of witnesses and police officers pertaining to what they heard or observed before, during, or after the commission of the crime if the continuous chain of events is evident under the circumstances.”
  • State of Louisiana v. Michael Bushnell Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    This doctrine encompasses “not only spontaneous utterances and declarations made before and after commission of the crime but also testimony of witnesses and police officers pertaining to what they heard or observed before, during, or after the commission of the crime if the continuous chain of events is evident under the circumstances.”
  • State v. Davis 30 So. 3d 201 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    This doctrine encompasses “not only spontaneous utterances and declarations made before and after commission of the crime but also testimony *209 of witnesses and police officers pertaining to what they heard or observed before, during, or after the commission of the crime if the continuous chain of events is evident under the circumstances.”
  • State of Louisiana v. Edward Charles Jackson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    both refer to new trial motions filed “within one year after verdict” although they do not deal directly with the issue presented herein.
  • State of Louisiana v. Francis Loncar La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    This doctrine encompasses “not only spontaneous utterances and declarations made before and after commission of the crime but also testimony of witnesses and police officers pertaining to what they heard or observed before, during, or after the commission of the crime if the continuous chain of events is evident under the circumstances.”
  • State v. LONCAR 970 So. 2d 113 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
  • State of Louisiana v. Jarvis Keon Carey La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    This doctrine encompasses “not only spontaneous utterances and declarations made before and after commission of the crime but also testimony of witnesses and police officers pertaining to what they heard or observed before, during, or after the commission of the crime if the continuous chain of events is evident under the circumstances.”
  • State of Louisiana v. Arthur Major III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
  • State v. Major 898 So. 2d 548 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
  • State v. Phillips 853 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
  • State v. Joseph 854 So. 2d 914 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
  • State v. Mandosia 842 So. 2d 1252 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
  • State v. Williams 779 So. 2d 1106 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
  • State v. Colomb 747 So. 2d 1074 La. 1999
  • State v. Guy 669 So. 2d 517 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
  • State v. Walters 630 So. 2d 1371 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • State v. Carouthers 618 So. 2d 880 La. 1993
    1982); State v. Berndt, supra
  • Persilver v. Louisiana Department of Transportation 592 So. 2d 1344 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
  • State v. Mallett 552 So. 2d 28 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Leonard 543 So. 2d 975 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Matthieu 527 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Lapworth 517 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Price 517 So. 2d 858 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Nance 469 So. 2d 1045 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • State v. Santee 464 So. 2d 922 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
  • State v. Wall 452 So. 2d 222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Brown 451 So. 2d 1074 La. 1984
  • State v. Welch 448 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Sanford 446 So. 2d 1381 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Doucet 443 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Johnson 440 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Craddock 435 So. 2d 1110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Parrish 434 So. 2d 475 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Washington 430 So. 2d 641 La. 1983
  • State v. Washington 430 So. 2d 641 La. 1983
  • State v. Billiot 421 So. 2d 864 La. 1982
    15:448; cert, den., 439 U.S. 1059 , 99 S.Ct.
  • State v. Sharp 414 So. 2d 752 La. 1982
  • State v. Heard 408 So. 2d 1247 La. 1982
  • State v. Goza 408 So. 2d 1349 La. 1982
    State v. Prieur, supra ; cert.
  • State v. Bice 407 So. 2d 1234 La. 1981
  • State v. Bolton 408 So. 2d 250 La. 1981
  • State v. Molinario 400 So. 2d 596 La. 1981
  • State v. Meredith 400 So. 2d 580 La. 1981