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