Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Vaughn, 448 So. 2d 1260.

28 citing documents.

State Of Louisiana v. Brittany Linn Estes La. 2025
State of Louisiana v. William A. McDonough La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
.” The Louisiana Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a defendant’s constitutional rights were violated when he was not allowed to cross-examine a (La.
State Of Louisiana v. Melanie Barnett Curtin La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana v. Travionne Bradley La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2020
Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 85 S. Ct. 1065, 13 L. Ed. 2d 923 (1965); (La.
State v. Pittman 244 So. 3d 830 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
1065 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965), and State v. Vaughn , (La.
State v. Jones 185 So. 3d 746 La. 2016
“The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right of an accused in á criminal prosecution ‘to be confronted with the witnesses against him.’ This right is secured -for defendants in state as well as federal criminal proceedings.” (citing Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 , 85 S.Ct.
State v. Moody 178 So. 3d 1031 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
State v. Everidge, 96-2666 (La.12/2/97)
State v. Morgan 119 So. 3d 817 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
1105, 1110 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); (on rehearing).
State v. Authier 92 So. 3d 494 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
1065 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965)
State v. Loyden 899 So. 2d 166 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State of Louisiana v. Booker Earl Loyden La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Goldston 804 So. 2d 141 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
State v. Lambert 749 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Hotoph 750 So. 2d 1036 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
[4] for the proposition that "cross-examination is permitted of an accusing witness regarding instances of sexual conduct with a person other than the defendant."
State v. Handy 732 So. 2d 134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
State v. Taylor 722 So. 2d 1073 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
State v. Everidge 702 So. 2d 680 La. 1997
State v. Small 693 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
State v. Ragas 607 So. 2d 967 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
State v. Womack 592 So. 2d 872 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
State v. Blue 591 So. 2d 1173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
State v. Trosclair 584 So. 2d 270 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
State v. Humphrey 544 So. 2d 1188 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
State v. Lanerie 527 So. 2d 1146 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
15:498 places a restriction on the right to confrontation in rape cases as it provides: *1149 “Evidence of prior sexual conduct and reputation for chastity of a victim of rape or carnal knowledge shall not be admissible except for incidents arising out of the victim’s relationship with the accused.” the court stated the goals of La.R.S.
State v. Dewhirst 527 So. 2d 475 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
State v. Feet 481 So. 2d 667 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Jenkins 456 So. 2d 174 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
would compel us to conclude that the trial judge's ruling in the instant case was erroneous.
State v. Booth 448 So. 2d 1363 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984