Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Toomer, 395 So. 2d 1320.

123 citing documents.

State v. Gantt 616 So. 2d 1300 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
State v. Pierre 614 So. 2d 1309 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
State v. Terrebone 590 So. 2d 105 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
State v. Velez 588 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
State v. McFerson 583 So. 2d 516 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
State v. Trahan 576 So. 2d 1 La. 1991
State v. Dietrich 567 So. 2d 623 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Cage 554 So. 2d 39 La. 1989
State v. Martin 543 So. 2d 1020 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Burnes 533 So. 2d 1029 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
State v. Jackson 523 So. 2d 251 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
State v. Franklin 520 So. 2d 1047 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
State v. Murphy 515 So. 2d 558 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Monroe 513 So. 2d 323 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Williams 500 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
289 , 70 L.Ed.2d 139 (1981)
State v. Bahm 490 So. 2d 384 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Ford 489 So. 2d 1250 La. 1986
State v. Smith 485 So. 2d 646 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Doolittle 482 So. 2d 896 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
State v. Hernandez 478 So. 2d 1326 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. London 478 So. 2d 1340 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State v. Lewis 478 So. 2d 665 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Price 475 So. 2d 6 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
That statute restricts good character evidence to showing “such moral qualities as have pertinence to the crime with which he is charged.”
State v. Martin 472 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State v. Green 469 So. 2d 1161 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State v. Guillot 470 So. 2d 360 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State v. Gultry 471 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State v. Ellwest Stereo Theatres, Inc.
State v. Cuevas 466 So. 2d 559 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
242 , 17 L.Ed.2d 149 (1966) cited *561 in Norman; where the Supreme Court noted at page 1329: “The constitutional guarantee that an accused be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him requires that penal statutes described unlawful conduct with sufficient particularity and clarity that ordinary men of reasonable intelligence are capab
State v. Simpson 464 So. 2d 1104 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
State v. Segura 464 So. 2d 1116 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
State v. Ashley 463 So. 2d 794 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Lingle 461 So. 2d 1046 La. 1985
State v. Williams 457 So. 2d 902 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
State v. Jackson 454 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 4th 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
The Supreme Court has long held that the purpose of discovery rules as set forth by the Code of Criminal Procedure is to "eliminate unwarranted prejudice which could arise from surprise testimony", especially where the defendant may be lulled into a misapprehension of the strength of the State's case.
State v. Birdsong 452 So. 2d 1236 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Kendig 451 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
State v. Miller 449 So. 2d 1361 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Henry 449 So. 2d 486 La. 1984
State v. Jackson 450 So. 2d 621 La. 1984
783 , 13 L.Ed.2d 630 (1965)
State v. Marquer 446 So. 2d 1258 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Adams 446 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
State v. Guin 444 So. 2d 625 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Sylvester 438 So. 2d 1277 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Johnson 438 So. 2d 1221 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Chapman 438 So. 2d 1319 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Anderson 440 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Buchanan 439 So. 2d 576 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Johnson 438 So. 2d 1091 La. 1983