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. Grey, 408 So. 2d 1239.

62 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Terri Latrelle Williams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
    State v. Knighten, 07-1061 (La.11/16/07)
  • State of Louisiana v. Roosevelt Randolph La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
  • State of Louisiana v. Troy Allen La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
    ial court refused to allow the introduction of this evidence, and the appellate court denied writs, the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed, stating in pertinent part as follows: This Court “has recognized that evidence of other drug sales is of great probative value in establishing intent to distribute when it is an essential element of the crime charged.” (La.
  • State v. Obrien 242 So. 3d 1254 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    Hill , 82 So.3d at 267 -68 (quoting State v. Grey , , 1242 (La.1982) ).
  • State of Louisiana v. Jermaine Christopher Obrien AKA Jermaine Christopher O'Brien La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
    “[E]vidence of other drug sales is of great probative value in establishing intent to distribute when it is an essential element of the crime charged.” Hill, 82 So.3d at 267-68 ( (La1982)).
  • State v. Brown 235 So. 3d 1314 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    3/9/12), (per curiam); State v. Knighten, 07-1061 (11/16/07), ; (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Joseph Taylor 217 So. 3d 283 La. 2016
  • State v. Richardson 142 So. 3d 314 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    State v. Knighten, 07-1061 (La.11/16/07)
  • State v. Donald 115 So. 3d 1138 La. 2013
  • State v. Hill 82 So. 3d 267 La. 2012
    See, e.g., State v. Knighten, 07-1061, p. 2 (La.11/16/07), (“This Court ‘has recognized that evidence of other drug sales is of great probative value in establishing intent to distribute when it is an essential element *268 of the crime charged.’ ”)().
  • State v. Williams 53 So. 3d 669 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    See State v. Gant, 93-2895 (La.5/20/94)
  • State of Louisiana v. Clyde A. Bowens La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • State v. Scott 48 So. 3d 1080 La. 2010
    essed the cocaine found on his premises, but also that he did so with the specific subjective intention of possessing it in order to distribute it.”); see, e.g., State v. Knighten, 07-1061, pp. 1-2 (La.11/16/07), (evidence of prior sales to informant admissible to prove an essential element of the crime charged, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute); -42 (La.1982) (same).
  • State v. Cummings 983 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    -43 (La.1982), (citation omitted), cited in Shumaker , the supreme court wrote: By this assignment defendants contend that the trial court erred in refusing *254 to permit defense counsel to inquire into the character of the police informant.
  • State of Louisiana v. Tihe D. Cummings La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    -43 (La.1982), (citation omitted), cited in Shumaker, the supreme court wrote: By this assignment defendants contend that the trial court erred in refusing to permit defense counsel to inquire into the character of the police informant.
  • State v. Knighten 968 So. 2d 720 La. 2007
  • State v. Shumaker 945 So. 2d 277 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
  • State v. Spencer 683 So. 2d 1326 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    In support of its ruling
  • State v. Johnson 665 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
  • State v. Gant 637 So. 2d 396 La. 1994
  • State v. Addison 551 So. 2d 687 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • State v. Alexander 550 So. 2d 207 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • State v. Stephens 542 So. 2d 188 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • State v. Stanford 539 So. 2d 762 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • State v. Scheen 539 So. 2d 846 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • State v. Stevens 535 So. 2d 547 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Johnson 529 So. 2d 142 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
  • State v. Coleman 528 So. 2d 192 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
  • State v. Lofton 528 So. 2d 188 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Robertson 517 So. 2d 988 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Stamper 513 So. 2d 434 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    The defendant’s (La 1982), in support of her claim of excessiveness is of no assistance.
  • State v. Herrington 512 So. 2d 607 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Wilson 508 So. 2d 960 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Gilbert 503 So. 2d 788 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Darby 502 So. 2d 274 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    State v. Sepulvado, supra."
  • State v. Lester 502 So. 2d 251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    State v. McDonald, supra
  • State v. Davis 499 So. 2d 729 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • State v. Buie 477 So. 2d 157 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. LaGrange 471 So. 2d 1186 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    3rd Cir.1983); State v. McDonald, supra; (La.
  • State v. Campbell 461 So. 2d 644 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Johnson 461 So. 2d 1273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Johnson 459 So. 2d 1316 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Johnson 457 So. 2d 1259 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Colvin 452 So. 2d 1214 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Hicks 450 So. 2d 64 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    State v. Jones, supra; compare, cert.
  • State v. Davis 449 So. 2d 452 La. 1984
    *455 (La.1982); State v. Guiden, supra .
  • State v. Bethly 449 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Thomas 447 So. 2d 1053 La. 1984
    State v. Sepulvado, supra.
  • State v. House 444 So. 2d 265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Leday 442 So. 2d 667 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983