Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Davis, 411 So. 2d 434.

85 citing documents.

State v. Price 517 So. 2d 858 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
” We conclude that it was more probable than not that the knife was connected with the case and the trial court did not err in allowing its introduction in evidence.
State v. Smith 513 So. 2d 438 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State v. White 508 So. 2d 982 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
State v. Brooks 505 So. 2d 245 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
State v. Huber 504 So. 2d 644 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
State v. O'NEAL 501 So. 2d 920 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State v. Reed 499 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
State v. Troquille 493 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
the Louisiana Supreme Court stated the following: Roviaro and the cases which follow it have given us certain outlines in which to operate.
State v. Sharlow 493 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
State v. Medford 489 So. 2d 957 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
State v. McCullom 480 So. 2d 430 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. McGee 478 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
: The problem is one that calls for balancing the public interest in protecting the flow of information against an individual's right to prepare his defense.
State v. Macaluso 473 So. 2d 375 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
the Court stated: “To admit demonstrative evidence at trial, the law requires that the object be identified.
State v. Gultry 471 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State v. Quetant 466 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State v. Smith 463 So. 2d 1003 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
State v. Humphries 463 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Williams 458 So. 2d 1315 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Jones 457 So. 2d 110 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Bosley 454 So. 2d 1245 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Downing 451 So. 2d 1221 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Dunn 452 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Johnson 453 So. 2d 279 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Silva 447 So. 2d 1242 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
The warrant was not issued on the basis of uncorroborated confidential information, and we therefore find no merit in defendant's complaints of the trial court's refusal to suppress and to order the state to give defendant the name of the informant () and the police officer's notes concerning past reliable information obtained from the informant (thus not concerning the officer's eyewitness testimony) ().
State v. Adams 446 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
State v. Joseph 441 So. 2d 1290 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Anderson 440 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Vaughn 431 So. 2d 763 La. 1983
State v. Albert 430 So. 2d 1279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Smith 430 So. 2d 31 La. 1983
State v. Taylor 422 So. 2d 109 La. 1982
State v. Williams 420 So. 2d 1116 La. 1982
Art. 773, but this Court has held that a chain of custody is not always essential to establish a foundation, : "To admit demonstrative evidence at trial, the law requires that the object be identified.
State v. McCabe 420 So. 2d 955 La. 1982
this court held: "To admit demonstrative evidence at trial, the law requires that the object be identified.
State v. Moore 419 So. 2d 963 La. 1982
State v. Sharp 414 So. 2d 752 La. 1982