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. Stucke, 419 So. 2d 939.

87 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana Versus Byron Franklin La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
  • State of Louisiana v. Timothy H. Queen A/K/A Timothy Hugh Queen La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
  • State Of Louisiana v. Randall K. Sturdivant La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
  • State Of Louisiana v. James Bishop La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
    denied, 562 U.S. 1044, 131 S. Ct, 597, 178 L.Ed.2d 434 ( 2010); ( La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Travis Boys La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
  • State of Louisiana Versus Teddy Chester La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2021
    Notably, the supreme court has placed 19-KA-363 55 limitations on this codal provision in that “[e]xpert testimony, while not limited to matters of science, art or skill, cannot invade the field of common knowledge, experience and education of men.” (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Cassetti Dewayne Brown, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
    art. 786, the scope of voir dire “shall be within the discretion of the court.” As the supreme court has previously held: The scope of examination lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, [-69 (La.1993)]; and reviewing courts owe a district judge’s determinations on the scope of voir dire great deference and may not disturb them in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion.
  • State Of Louisiana v. Jason W. Thomas La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
    denied, 562 U.S. 1044, 131 S. Ct. 597, 178 L. Ed. 2d 434 ( 2010) ( ( La.
  • State v. Magee 243 So. 3d 151 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
  • State v. Lutz 235 So. 3d 1114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    The Supreme Court has | ^placed limitations on this codal provision in that* “expert testimony, while not limited to matters of science, art or skill, cannot invade the field of common knowledge, experience and education of men.” (La.
  • State v. Otkins-Victor 193 So. 3d 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    Importantly, the refusal of a trial court | fiBto receive expert testimony “will rarely, if ever, provide grounds for reversal.” Id.
  • State v. Victor 195 So. 3d 128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    Importantly, the refusal of a trial court to receive expert testimony “will rarely, if ever, provide grounds for reversal.”
  • State of Louisiana Versus Errol Victor, Sr. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2016
  • State v. Thomas 192 So. 3d 291 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2016
    182 , 163 L.Ed.2d 187 (2005) () ().
  • State v. Lambert 191 So. 3d 630 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    The recent concurrences of Justice Clark and Justice Crichton in the Court’s writ denial in State v. Lee, 15-0899 (La.6/19/15), , refer to the continuing viability of the Court’s holding in Young , all resting upon the court’s 1982 seminal decision on the matter
  • State v. Farrier 162 So. 3d 1233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    State v. Young 09-1177, p. 9 (La.4/5/10), .
  • State v. Henry 147 So. 3d 1143 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    [the] education of men.”
  • State v. Sellers 128 So. 3d 1235 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    For example, the supreme court affirmed a sentence of 10 years at hard labor for aggravated battery committed by a 28-year-old male first felony offender who had a prior arrest for aggravated battery and a misdemeanor conviction for possession of marijuana.
  • State v. Waldrop 93 So. 3d 780 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    The supreme court has placed limitations on this codal provision in that, “[e]xpert testimony, while not limited to matters of science, art or skill, cannot invade the field of common knowledge, experience and education of men.”
  • State v. Camp 59 So. 3d 548 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    1474 , 137 L.Ed.2d 686 : (1997); -
  • State v. Lamonica 44 So. 3d 895 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Notably, the supreme court has placed limitations on this codal provision in that, “[ejxpert testimony, while not limited to matters of science, art or skill, cannot invade the field of common knowledge, experience and education of men.” see State v. Young, 09-1177 (La.4/5/10), -47 .
  • State v. Mosley 13 So. 3d 705 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Competence of an expert witness is a question of fact to be determined within the sound discretion of the trial judge; h[er] rulings on the qualifications of expert witnesses will not be disturbed in the absence of manifest error.” Id., ().
  • State v. Bozeman 951 So. 2d 1171 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
    but he contends that it is time to revisit the rationale of the old jurisprudence.
  • State v. Higgins 898 So. 2d 1219 La. 2005
  • State v. Fletcher 845 So. 2d 1213 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    State v. Taylor, 98-603 (La.App.
  • State v. Washington 793 So. 2d 376 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    2 , the Louisiana Supreme Court found that a trial court did not err in excluding the testimony of a psychologist as [1?to the reliability of the victim’s identification, based on the expert’s experiments with staged crimes.
  • State v. Washington 793 So. 2d 376 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
  • State v. Laymon 756 So. 2d 1160 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    ruled against the admission of expert testimony relative to eyewitness identifications.
  • State v. Taylor 733 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
  • State v. Baker 729 So. 2d 167 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
  • State v. Craig 699 So. 2d 865 La. 1997
  • State v. Roy 681 So. 2d 1230 La. 1996
    The scope of examination lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, id.; and reviewing courts owe a district judge's determinations on the scope of voir dire great deference and may not disturb them in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion.
  • State v. Matthews 679 So. 2d 977 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
  • State v. Harris 627 So. 2d 788 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
  • State v. Ford 608 So. 2d 1058 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding testimony of defendant's expert witness regarding the quality of an identification.
  • State v. Granier 592 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
  • State v. Turner 591 So. 2d 391 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
  • State v. Kafieh 590 So. 2d 100 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
  • State v. Velez 588 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
  • State v. Munoz 575 So. 2d 848 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
    App. 3rd Cir.1986) and cases cited therein
  • State v. Granier 563 So. 2d 1354 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
  • State v. Gurley 565 So. 2d 1055 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
    ruled against the admission of expert testimony relative to eyewitness identifications.
  • State v. Bargeman 549 So. 2d 1293 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • State v. Harris 540 So. 2d 1226 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Weiland 540 So. 2d 1288 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
    where the Supreme Court said at page 907: "...
  • State v. Griffin 540 So. 2d 1144 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    -948 (La.1982); State v. Brown, supra .
  • Hurt v. Viator 537 So. 2d 289 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • Burk v. Illinois Cent. Gulf RR Co. 529 So. 2d 515 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Villavicencio 528 So. 2d 215 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
  • State v. Hodges 526 So. 2d 406 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988