Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Johnson, 438 So. 2d 1091.

156 citing documents.

State v. Taylor 553 So. 2d 873 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Brown 552 So. 2d 612 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
State v. Taylor 550 So. 2d 712 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
State v. Richardson 547 So. 2d 749 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
State v. Carroll 546 So. 2d 1365 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
State v. Guillory 544 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Jones 544 So. 2d 1209 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Holland 544 So. 2d 461 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
State v. Trahan 543 So. 2d 984 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Heacox 543 So. 2d 101 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Leonard 543 So. 2d 975 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
3d Cir.1985), writ denied
State v. Hickman 539 So. 2d 108 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Freeman 539 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Washington 533 So. 2d 392 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
State v. Washington 533 So. 2d 392 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Collins 535 So. 2d 973 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
State v. Richardson 529 So. 2d 1301 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
State v. Ford, supra ; State v. Thetford, supra .
State v. Everett 530 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
State v. Gilmore 529 So. 2d 859 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
State v. LeBlang 530 So. 2d 601 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Jones 526 So. 2d 1374 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Ford 525 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
the Louisiana Supreme Court explained: “Generally, direct evidence consists of testimony from a witness who actually saw or heard an occurrence, proof of the existence of which is at issue; whereas, circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of t
State v. Simmons 518 So. 2d 28 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Wilson 520 So. 2d 935 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
State v. Wiley 513 So. 2d 849 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State v. O'Pry 511 So. 2d 87 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
the Louisiana Supreme Court explained: “Generally, direct evidence consists of testimony from a witness who actually saw or heard an occurrence, proof of the existence of which is at issue; whereas, circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of t
State v. Seward 509 So. 2d 413 La. 1987
State v. Guillory 502 So. 2d 258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Holmes 502 So. 2d 1112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Stringer 496 So. 2d 1287 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
State v. Bowman 491 So. 2d 1380 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
State v. Banks 482 So. 2d 92 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Calway 482 So. 2d 74 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
An intent to deprive the other permanently of whatever may be the subject of the misappropriation or taking is essential.” (La.
State v. Feet 481 So. 2d 667 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
the supreme court emphasized that the trial judge must be completely neutral and stated: A trial judge's disparaging remarks or intemperate criticism of defense counsel may constitute reversible error when such remarks adversely influence and prejudice the jury against the defendant.
State v. Hamilton 481 So. 2d 135 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Lewis 478 So. 2d 665 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Green 470 So. 2d 434 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
State v. Thomas 470 So. 2d 413 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
State v. Lilly 468 So. 2d 1154 La. 1985
we had occasion to consider the constitutional and statutory standards by which the sufficiency of evidence is to be judged in this state.
State v. Hart 467 So. 2d 1366 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
(La.1983), the Supreme Court of Louisiana, in affirming a first degree murder conviction, stated: “In interpreting this provision, we have repeatedly held that La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Holmes 467 So. 2d 1177 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Arnold 466 So. 2d 520 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
State v. Huddleston 463 So. 2d 104 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Butler 462 So. 2d 1280 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State v. Evans 463 So. 2d 673 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Brown 461 So. 2d 407 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
There are, however, exceptions to this rule, at 1098 (La.,1983): As a rule, the state is not required to produce for inspection a police report or a prior statement for use in cross-examination of a state witness for impeachment purposes unless: (1) the witness has physical possession of the report on the stand and testified from it.
State v. Ester 458 So. 2d 1357 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Bennett 454 So. 2d 1165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Felo 454 So. 2d 1150 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Birdsong 452 So. 2d 1236 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984