Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Vaughn, 431 So. 2d 358.

43 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Issa L. Lamizana, Jr. 263 So. 3d 872 La. 2019
n.8 (1982) (on reh’g) (“[T]he appellate court, when reviewing an erroneous ruling that improperly excludes evidence, must be convinced that the excluded evidence would not have affected the jury’s determination.”).
State v. Magee 243 So. 3d 151 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
1982) ; , 370, nn.3-7 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Corlious C. Dyson AKA Corlious Corall Dyson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
State v. Dyson 220 So. 3d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Eric Dale Mickelson La. 2014
State v. Parker 76 So. 3d 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Square, 257 La.
State of Louisiana v. Jonathan Edward Boyer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
ejudice to the prosecution is balanced against defendant’s constitutional right to present relevant evidence in support of his defense, [the] balance should be weighed in favor of admissibility in those cases in which the prejudice is minimal.’” n. 5 (La.1992)(quoting State v. 8 Vaughn, ).
State v. Boyer 56 So. 3d 1119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
le espoused in Vigee is likewise subject to a balancing standard; “when ‘prejudice to the prosecution is balanced against defendant’s constitutional right to present relevant evidence in support of his defense, [the] balance should be weighed in favor of admissibility in those cases in which the prejudice is minimal.’ ” , 1138 n. 5 (La.1992)().
State v. Holmes 5 So. 3d 42 La. 2008
State v. Desoto 968 So. 2d 146 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
State v. Blank 955 So. 2d 90 La. 2007
See also, -62 (La.1983) (on rehearing) (erroneous exclusion of evidence subject to harmless error analysis).
State of Louisiana v. Jake C. Desoto La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
State v. Anders 941 So. 2d 93 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
State of Louisiana v. Quantell Derell Anders La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
State v. Jefferson 922 So. 2d 577 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
ule espoused in Vigee is likewise subject to a balancing standard; "when `prejudice to the prosecution is balanced against defendant's constitutional right to present relevant evidence in support of his defense, [the] balance should be weighed in favor of admissibility in those cases in which the prejudice is minimal.'" , 1138 n. 5 (La.1992)().
State v. Persley 918 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
State v. Lyles 858 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State v. Dickerson, 01-1287 (La.App.
State v. Phillips 853 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
State v. Joseph 854 So. 2d 914 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
State v. Dickerson 822 So. 2d 849 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
State v. Cosey 779 So. 2d 675 La. 2000
State v. Taylor 759 So. 2d 112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
5 Cir. 1/27/98), , 769 n. 3, writ denied, 98-0913 (La.9/4/98), ().
State v. Casey 775 So. 2d 1022 La. 2000
371 n. 8 (La.1982) (citing Gibson, 391 So.2d at 426 ).
State v. Thibodeaux 750 So. 2d 916 La. 1999
State v. Sims 734 So. 2d 813 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
263 , 78 L.Ed.2d 247 (1983)
State v. Cooks 720 So. 2d 637 La. 1998
See State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947 (La.6/30/95), ; (on rehearing).
State v. Batiste 708 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
State v. Dixon 620 So. 2d 904 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
371 n. 8 (La.1982), on rehearing.
State v. Mosby 595 So. 2d 1135 La. 1992
Counsel for defendant acknowledged this difference in the cases, and State v. Jenkins, 134 La.
State v. Mosby 581 So. 2d 1060 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
State v. Harrison 560 So. 2d 450 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
State v. Johnson 553 So. 2d 865 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Smith 554 So. 2d 676 La. 1989
4th Cir.1986); n. 8 (La.1982) (erroneous denial of admission of evidence); See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct.
State v. Bennett 517 So. 2d 1115 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Murphy, 234 La.
State v. Haywood 491 So. 2d 1318 La. 1986
State v. Robins 484 So. 2d 877 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Dunbar 483 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Daniels 473 So. 2d 873 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
State v. Patch 470 So. 2d 585 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
A defendant has the right to present any and all relevant evidence bearing on his innocence, n. 3-7 (La.1982) (on rehearing), unless prohibited by our federal and state constitutions, by law or by jurisprudence.
State v. Burton 464 So. 2d 421 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
263 , 78 L.Ed.2d 247 (1983)
State v. Guerin 452 So. 2d 746 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
the Supreme Court, on rehearing, addressed the question of relevant evidence in support of a defense.
State v. Sterling 444 So. 2d 273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
370 n. 4 (La.1983) (on rehearing).
State v. Johnson 443 So. 2d 744 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983