Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Sylvester, 388 So. 2d 1155.

30 citing documents.

State v. Nightengale 818 So. 2d 819 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
Reversal is only applicable if the evidence created a “reasonable doubt that did not otherwise exist.” (La.App.
State v. Ortiz 701 So. 2d 922 La. 1997
2d Cir. 1984), writ denied
State v. Lavalais 685 So. 2d 1048 La. 1996
2d Cir. 1984), writ denied, (La.
State v. Clark 581 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
State v. Kidd 568 So. 2d 175 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
State v. Cobb, supra; (La.
State v. Robertson 511 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State v. Brown 499 So. 2d 395 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Wille 496 So. 2d 375 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
one of the advantages of providing an in camera inspection of alleged Brady material is that “this procedure, by which the trial court exercises discretion in determining materiality, provides a method of efficient review of that decision by direct appeal and avoids the less efficient post-conviction
State v. Starks 471 So. 2d 1029 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Yancy 465 So. 2d 48 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
2392 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976)
State v. Mitchell 459 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
The court then remanded the ease to the trial court for determination of whether the witness’s written or recorded statements contained inconsistencies with her trial testimony, and, if so, whether the evidence was material to the defendant’s guilt or punishment, employing the “totality of the facts and circumstances”
State v. Williams 458 So. 2d 1315 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
a specific request was made prior to trial for statements tending to reduce the credibility of a prosecution witness.
Distinguished State v. Whitlock 454 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Welcome 458 So. 2d 1235 La. 1984
Orleans Parish Date of Crime: July 20, 1976 Gunman hired by defendant shot and killed two people who were to be prosecution witnesses in defendant's trial for possession of heroin with intent to distribute.
State v. Banks 446 So. 2d 497 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Ates relied on United States Constitutional standards requiring disclosure of exculpatory evidence and production of witnesses's pre-trial statements, and it cites as support Giglio v. United States, supra
State v. Peters 441 So. 2d 403 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
State v. Marchese 430 So. 2d 1303 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Robinson, supra; State v. Nicholas, supra
State v. Davenport 422 So. 2d 1150 La. 1982
State v. Cobb 419 So. 2d 1237 La. 1982
State v. Ates 418 So. 2d 1326 La. 1982
rmination of: (1) whether the written or recorded statements of Ms. Deland contain inconsistencies with her trial testimony, or other evidence favorable to the accused; and, if so, (2) whether such evidence is material to the defendant's guilt or punishment, employing the standard applicable on the basis of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case
State v. Yarbrough 418 So. 2d 503 La. 1982
Additionally, the present record does not disclose the withholding of evidence by the State which could have influenced the verdict.
State v. Winn 412 So. 2d 1337 La. 1982
State v. Vaccaro 411 So. 2d 415 La. 1982
State v. Toledano 408 So. 2d 1252 La. 1982
and concluded the applicable standard of materiality depends on all of the facts and circumstances in each ease.
State v. Hennigan 404 So. 2d 222 La. 1981
State v. Bryan 398 So. 2d 1019 La. 1981
2392 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976); (La.
State v. Davenport 399 So. 2d 201 La. 1981
The use of an in camera inspection by the trial judge (after which he had denied production for cross-examination of a requested written statement of a state witness on the basis that it would not have created a reasonable doubt as to guilt of the defendant that did not otherwise exist)
State v. Hicks 395 So. 2d 790 La. 1981
State, in Interest of Giangrosso 395 So. 2d 709 La. 1981
(Lemmon, J., concurring).
State v. Toledano 391 So. 2d 817 La. 1980
2392 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976); [3] Tate, J., concurring