Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Armstead, 432 So. 2d 837.

31 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Allen Clayton Fulks La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana v. O'Shay Devan Hicks La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
State v. Simpson 186 So. 3d 195 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
State v. Austin 146 So. 3d 716 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
“The Louisiana Supreme Court has held that telephone records do not constitute hearsay since they are ‘generated solely by the electrical and mechanical operations of the computer and telephone equipment, and [are] not dependent upon the observations and reporting of a human declarant.’ ” State v. Austin, 12-629 (La.App.5th Cir.3/13/13), , -40 (La.1983); see also State v. Carter, 97-2902 (La.App.4th Cir.5/10/00), .
State v. Webb 133 So. 3d 258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
art. 801 (defining a statement as an oral or written assertion by a declarant, or “a person who makes a statement”), (distinguishing between computer stored human statements which are hearsay and computer generated statements which are nonhearsay), and the factual assertions made by the technicians that the profiles related to the specific samples delivered to the laboratories were admissible despite their hearsay cha
State v. Taylor 118 So. 3d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Id., 11-2435, p. 4, 108 So.3d at 1162 ().
State v. Austin 113 So. 3d 306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Second, the Louisiana Supreme Court has held that telephone records do not constitute hearsay since they are “generated solely by the electrical and mechanical operations of the computer and telephone equipment, and [are] not dependent upon the observations and reporting of a human declarant.” , 839^41 (La.1983); and State v. Carter, 97-2902, pp. 25-30 (LaApp.
State v. Breaux 110 So. 3d 281 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
However, “[w]hen the exclusion is of a defense witness, the matter takes on constitutional significance, as the defendant’s right to compel the attendance of witnesses and to present his defense may be impaired.”
State v. Grimes 109 So. 3d 1007 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
art. 801 (defining a statement as an oral or written assertion by a declarant, or “a person who makes a statement”), (distinguishing between computer stored human statements which are hearsay and computer generated statements which are nonhearsay), and the factual assertions made by the technicians that the profiles related to the specific samples delivered to the laboratories were admissible despite their hearsay cha
State v. Bolden 108 So. 3d 1159 La. 2012
art. 801 (defining a statement as an oral or written assertion by a declarant, or “a person who makes a statement”), (distinguishing between computer stored human statements which are hearsay and computer generated statements which are nonhearsay), and the factual assertions made by the technicians that the profiles related to the specific samples delivered to the laboratories were admissible despite their hearsay cha
State v. McMillan 43 So. 3d 297 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
art. 703, -40 (La.1983) (telephone company records generated solely by the electrical and mechanical operations of the computer and telephone equipment and not dependent upon the observations and reporting of a human declarant are not hearsay), or under the defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense.
State v. Lucas 896 So. 2d 331 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
State v. Strickland, 94-0025 (La.11/1/96)
State v. Watson 844 So. 2d 198 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State v. Carter 762 So. 2d 662 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. Strickland 683 So. 2d 218 La. 1996
State v. Searcy 621 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
State v. Conway 588 So. 2d 1369 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
State v. Savage 575 So. 2d 478 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: "The printout of the results of the computer's internal operations is not hearsay evidence.
State v. Cathey 569 So. 2d 627 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
State v. Revere 572 So. 2d 117 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Worthen 550 So. 2d 399 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Jones 544 So. 2d 1209 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Joubert 534 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Johnson 495 So. 2d 430 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Shoemaker 488 So. 2d 1084 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
State v. Perkins 480 So. 2d 451 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Code of Criminal Procedure art. 883 and its official comments
State v. Wiley 459 So. 2d 129 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Stampley 457 So. 2d 1238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Rivers 446 So. 2d 913 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Jarman 445 So. 2d 1184 La. 1984
State v. Warren 437 So. 2d 836 La. 1983