Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Perkins, 423 So. 2d 1103.

53 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Navarri R. Henderson La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
State Of Louisiana v. Rodney Jack Strain, Jr. La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana v. Joshua David Evans La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
State v. Spruell 268 So. 3d 397 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
2/1/08), , citing State v. Perkins , (La.
State v. Doucet 237 So. 3d 598 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Perkins , , 1109 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Robert Leroy McCoy 218 So. 3d 535 La. 2016
1989) (holding it was error to allow the jury to view autopsy and crime lab reports when they would assist the jury only if examined for content); -10 (La.
State v. Caminita 203 So. 3d 1100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Baham 151 So. 3d 698 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
(jury reviewed defendant’s confession to police); State v. Perkins, supra [ ] (conviction for first degree murder reversed based on a Brady violation and because during deliberations the jury examined the defendant’s written statement); (La.App.
State v. Marlbrough 138 So. 3d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State of Louisiana v. Kevin James Dalcourt La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
1 Cir.), writ denied, (La.App.
State v. DOWL 39 So. 3d 754 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
In support of the trial court’s ruling, which provided: *763 The general rule as expressed by C. Cr.
State of Louisiana v. D D La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. DD 34 So. 3d 1169 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. RWW 953 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
3 Cir. 1987) (wherein this court found Article 793 violated when the trial court allowed the jury to review the transcript of the defendant's oral statement for the purpose of examining its contents) (wherein the supreme court reversed the defendant's conviction and remanded the case for a new trial because the trial court allowed the jury to review the defendant's written statement after retiring for deliberations).
State of Louisiana v. R.W.W. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
3 Cir. 1987) (wherein this court found Article 793 violated when the trial court allowed the jury to review the transcript of the defendant’s oral statement for the purpose of examining its contents) (wherein the supreme court reversed the defendant’s conviction and remanded the case for a new trial because the trial court allowed the jury to review the defendant’s written statement after retiring for deliberations).
State v. R.W.W. 953 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
3 Cir. 1987) (wherein this court found Article 793 violated when the trial court allowed the jury to review the transcript of the defendant’s oral statement for the purpose of examining its contents) (wherein the supreme court reversed the defendant’s conviction and remanded the case for a new trial because the trial court allowed the jury to review the defendant’s written statement after retiring for deliberations).
State v. Zeigler 920 So. 2d 949 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State of Louisiana v. Justin Savoy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Freetime, 303 So.2d at 490.
State v. Savoy 916 So. 2d 339 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Freetime, 303 So.2d at 490 .
State v. Caston 914 So. 2d 122 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
shows that an examination of documents like the copies of checks presented here could be allowed under certain circumstances.
State v. Lyles 858 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State v. Sellers 818 So. 2d 231 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
State v. Johnson 726 So. 2d 1126 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Pooler 696 So. 2d 22 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
State v. Grubbs 644 So. 2d 1105 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
2392, 2399 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976); (La.App.
State v. Soler 636 So. 2d 1069 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
State v. Howard 626 So. 2d 459 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
State v. Lewis 611 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
State v. Crandell 604 So. 2d 123 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
State v. Lewis 590 So. 2d 1266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
State v. Ray 577 So. 2d 354 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
State v. Lewis 560 So. 2d 700 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a request for statements of persons interviewed by an agent of the state and whom the state did not intend to call at trial was specific enough.
State v. Adams 550 So. 2d 595 La. 1989
Freetime, 303 So.2d at 490 .
State v. Johnson 541 So. 2d 818 La. 1989
(emphasis in opinion) -10 (La.
State v. Adams 537 So. 2d 1262 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
State v. Gracia 527 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
the court held that a "written statement, although not a confession, [was] an inculpatory statement made by the defendant, and the same danger which was present in Freetime [was] present.
State v. Lambert 506 So. 2d 1384 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Brady v. Maryland, supra
State v. Domingue 507 So. 2d 296 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Brady v. Maryland, supra
State v. Mills 505 So. 2d 933 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State v. Gongre 503 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Hailes 501 So. 2d 788 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
State v. Johnson 482 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Rodriguez 476 So. 2d 503 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Hart 467 So. 2d 1366 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State v. Johnson 464 So. 2d 1363 La. 1985
1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); see
State v. Simpson 464 So. 2d 1104 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
State v. Ashley 463 So. 2d 794 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
2392 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976)
State v. Yancy 465 So. 2d 48 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
2392 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976)
State v. Buras 459 So. 2d 756 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
Distinguished State v. Whitlock 454 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984