Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Morris, 429 So. 2d 111.

50 citing documents.

State Of Louisiana v. Jayson Lee Figueroa La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
Cheri Hayden Versus Frederick Boutte, Warden La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
(); State v. Woodberry,14-0476 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Reginald K. Jackson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
Although the error may have been common to the parties and the court, no erroneous ruling of the court prevented the state from proceeding under alternative theories of aggravated rape, (citing Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 98 S.Ct.
State v. Woodberry 171 So. 3d 1082 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Edgar 140 So. 3d 22 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State of Louisiana v. Simcoe Cole AKA Simco W. Cole La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Pierre 111 So. 3d 64 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
the Supreme Court explained a defendant’s options under LSA-R.S.
State v. McElveen 73 So. 3d 1033 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Simpkins 12 So. 3d 1021 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Although the error may have been common to the parties and the court, no erroneous ruling of the court prevented the state from proceeding under alternative theories of aggravated rape, (citing Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 , 98 S.Ct.
State v. Baker 970 So. 2d 948 La. 2008
State v. Granier 973 So. 2d 181 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
State v. Blank 955 So. 2d 90 La. 2007
State v. Robinson 817 So. 2d 1131 La. 2002
(on rehearing) ("[D]efects of capacity, sensory or mental, which would lessen the ability to perceive the facts which the witness purports to have observed, are provable to attack the credibility of the witness, either upon cross-examination or pr
State v. Robinson 772 So. 2d 966 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
the Supreme Court held that mental abnormality either at the time of observing the facts or at the time of testifying will be provable on cross-examination or by extrinsic evidence as bearing on credibility.
State v. Coleman 756 So. 2d 1218 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
State v. Cager 732 So. 2d 97 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
the Supreme Court stated that mental abnormality either at the time of observing the facts or at the time of testifying will be provable on cross-examination or by extrinsic evidence as bearing on credibility.
State v. Van Winkle 701 So. 2d 1076 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
The law, is clear that when the state seeks to introduce a confession or statement of the defendant *1079 which contains other crimes evidence, the defendant has two options: He may waive his right to have the whole statement used, object to the other crimes evidence, and require the court to excise it before a
State v. Bullard 700 So. 2d 1051 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
State v. Edmondson 699 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
-1134 (La.1983); -118 (La.1983); (La.
State v. Reeder 698 So. 2d 56 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
State v. Keys 694 So. 2d 1107 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
State v. Hart 691 So. 2d 651 La. 1997
State v. Bailey 664 So. 2d 665 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
State v. Stewart 656 So. 2d 677 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
However, in response to an earlier writ application filed by the state in the present case ( State v. Stewart, No. 26,445-KW (03/31/94)), another panel of this court, (La.App.
State v. Glynn 653 So. 2d 1288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
State v. Melbert 649 So. 2d 740 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
State v. Bourque 622 So. 2d 198 La. 1993
State v. Welch 615 So. 2d 300 La. 1993
State v. Lewis 590 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
the court granted a defendant the option of objecting to the other crimes evidence and requiring the court to excise, or edit, the statement before admitting it.
State v. Long 590 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: "The mere fact that a jury was successfully empaneled does not render the venue question moot.
State v. Torres 580 So. 2d 1064 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
State v. Stanfield 562 So. 2d 969 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
State v. Lee 559 So. 2d 1310 La. 1990
Media publicity will not require a change of venue unless the "`trial atmosphere' has been `utterly corrupted by press coverage.'"
State v. Hallal 544 So. 2d 1222 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
4th Cir.1986); State v. Wiggins, supra
State v. Bennett 527 So. 2d 1126 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Extensive knowledge in the community of either the crimes or the putative criminal is not in itself sufficient to render a trial constitutionally unfair; however, unfairness of a constitutional magnitude may be presumed so as to require a change of venue if the trial atmosphere has been “utterly corrupted by press coverage.” quoting Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282 , 97 S.Ct.
Distinguished State v. Walters 514 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
State v. Smith 513 So. 2d 438 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State v. Digilormo 505 So. 2d 1154 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
State v. Kent 489 So. 2d 1354 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Arvel 481 So. 2d 691 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Desselle 479 So. 2d 1051 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
the Louisiana Supreme Court applied La.C.
State v. Vinet 466 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
the Louisiana Supreme Court reiterated this general rule of law: A defendant is entitled to insist upon introduction of the entirety of a statement sought to be used against him, although, of course, he may waive the benefits of the protective statute.
State v. Sensley 460 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Bennett 454 So. 2d 1165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Joseph 454 So. 2d 237 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
at page 121: *247 A defendant is entitled to insist upon introduction of the entirety of a statement sought to be used against him, although, of course, he may waive the benefits of the protective statute.
State v. Smith 444 So. 2d 262 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Green 443 So. 2d 531 La. 1983
State v. Clark 442 So. 2d 1129 La. 1983
art. 622, Goodson, supra ; Rodrigue, supra .
State v. Kahey 436 So. 2d 475 La. 1983
1639, 1642 , 61 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961)
State v. Gomez 433 So. 2d 230 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983