Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Sam, 412 So. 2d 1082.

55 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Michael J. Comeaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2025
    [citations omitted] Further, “[a] defect in the chain of custody goes to the weight of the evidence rather than to its admissibility.” State v. Frank, 549 So.2d at 405 ( (La.App.
  • State v. Mark 146 So. 3d 886 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State of Louisiana v. Triston T. Lyons La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    The court further observed in its opinion in Bell that, a matter in which the State was persistent in cross-examining a defendant regarding his failure to offer an exculpatory explanation at the time of his arrest, the defendant‟s conviction was reversed in reliance upon Doyle.
  • State v. Ferguson 54 So. 3d 152 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • State v. Bradley 997 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
  • State v. Becnel 904 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    State v. Frank, 549 So.2d at 405 ( (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Willie James Morris, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    The court further observed in its opinion in Bell that, a matter in which the State was persistent in cross-examining a defendant regarding his failure to offer an exculpatory explanation at the time of his arrest, the defendant’s conviction was reversed in reliance upon Doyle.
  • State v. Morris 876 So. 2d 247 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    The court further observed in its opinion in Bell that, a matter in which the State was persistent in cross-examining defendant regarding his failure to offer an exculpatory explanation at the time of his arrest, the defendant’s conviction was reversed in reliance upon Doyle .
  • Arriola v. Orleans Parish School Bd. 809 So. 2d 932 La. 2002
    See, United States v. Lott, 854 F.2d 244, 250 (7th Cir.1988); State v. Dunbar, XXXX-XXXX, (La.App.
  • State v. Crotwell 818 So. 2d 34 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    State v. Grant, 99-1065, p. 8 (La.App.
  • State v. Dunbar 798 So. 2d 178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
  • State v. Lee 778 So. 2d 656 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    State v. Merrill, 94-0716 (La.App.
  • State v. Grant 761 So. 2d 10 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • State v. Lewis 736 So. 2d 1004 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
  • State v. Sias 706 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    appeal after remand, (La.App.
  • State v. Joseph 685 So. 2d 237 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
    appeal after remand, (La.App.
  • State v. Badon 664 So. 2d 1291 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
  • State v. Merrill 650 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
  • State v. Smith 625 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
  • State v. Hall 624 So. 2d 927 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    appeal after remand, (La.App.
  • State v. Alexander 621 So. 2d 861 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
  • State v. Hamilton 594 So. 2d 1376 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
  • State v. Patterson 572 So. 2d 1144 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    Defendant essentially argues that S-2 was inadmissible on relevancy grounds; however, in regard to the foundation requirements for admission of demonstrative evidence at trial, defendant combines an argument based on this separate ground for objection with his relevancy argument.
  • State v. Johnson 553 So. 2d 865 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • State v. Frank 549 So. 2d 401 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Livings 548 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • State v. Bonhomme 544 So. 2d 640 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • State v. Simon 544 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
    as follows: "In order to introduce demonstrative evidence, it suffices if the foundation laid establishes that it is more probable than not that the object is the one connected with the case; lack of positive identification or a defect in the chain of custody goes to the weight of the evidence rather t
  • State v. Kalathakis 543 So. 2d 1004 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • State v. French 538 So. 2d 1117 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • State v. Wells 522 So. 2d 1163 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
  • State v. Williams 524 So. 2d 1221 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    2240 , 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976)
  • State v. Comeaux 505 So. 2d 220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Arvie 505 So. 2d 44 La. 1987
  • State v. Cann 494 So. 2d 1263 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    appeal after remand (La.App.
  • State v. Sharlow 493 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
    State v. Gultry, supra ; (La.
  • State v. Jones 490 So. 2d 613 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    In this regard, we note that the Louisiana jurisprudence cited by the defendant, (La.App.
  • State v. Franks 483 So. 2d 224 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • State v. McCullom 480 So. 2d 430 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    The state laid the proper foundation to admit the clothing as demonstrative evidence, and the clothing was properly identified.
  • State v. Sam 478 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the defendant’s conviction and remanded the case for a new trial.
  • State v. Bullock 476 So. 2d 1008 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Thus, in the instant case, the victim’s prior record would be inadmissible unless there was a showing that the defendant knew of the record at the time of the homicide.” the Louisiana Supreme Court cited King, supra, holding “the victim’s prior record may be admitted if a showing is made that Sam [the accused] knew of the record at the time of the shooting.” The record offers no evidence indicating Bullock’s awareness, at the time of the incident, of Joseph Mincey’s c
  • State v. Macaluso 473 So. 2d 375 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
    and cases cited therein at page 1086.
  • State v. Domingue 470 So. 2d 1013 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the ways Doyle had been interpreted in this state, and held that "[a]lthough the defendant can be fully cross-examined when he takes the stand and is subject to impeachment by use of his silence under certain circumstances, it is fundamentally unfair to allow the
  • State v. Gultry 471 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
  • State v. Jones 467 So. 2d 147 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Williams 458 So. 2d 1315 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Morris 457 So. 2d 119 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Bosley 454 So. 2d 1245 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Joseph 454 So. 2d 237 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
  • State v. Downing 451 So. 2d 1221 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984