Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Sweeney, 443 So. 2d 522.

210 citing documents.

State v. Gordon 646 So. 2d 995 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
State v. Reynaga 643 So. 2d 431 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
State v. Bradham 638 So. 2d 428 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
State v. Brabham 638 So. 2d 428 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
State v. McKinney 637 So. 2d 1120 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
State v. Gamble 631 So. 2d 586 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
State v. McPherson 630 So. 2d 935 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
State v. Alexander 621 So. 2d 861 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
State v. Conrad 620 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
State v. Appacrombie 616 So. 2d 285 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
State v. Tyler, supra ; State v. Hall, supra .
State v. Wiley 614 So. 2d 862 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
State v. Hall, supra , appeal dism.
State v. Tong 609 So. 2d 822 La. 1992
compare State v. *826 Bell
State v. Hall 602 So. 2d 256 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
State v. Jackson 597 So. 2d 1188 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
State v. Smith 591 So. 2d 1219 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
State v. Thomas 589 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
State v. Jones 587 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
State v. Riley 587 So. 2d 130 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
State v. Myers 584 So. 2d 242 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
455 , 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (1971)
State v. Riley 581 So. 2d 1077 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Excessiveness of Sentence A at 531: La.
State v. Dickerson 579 So. 2d 472 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
State v. Larson 579 So. 2d 1050 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
State v. Lee 577 So. 2d 134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
State v. Munoz 575 So. 2d 848 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
State v. Montgomery 575 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
State v. Greco 575 So. 2d 407 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
State v. Patterson 572 So. 2d 1144 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Defendant essentially argues that S-2 was inadmissible on relevancy grounds; however, in regard to the foundation requirements for admission of demonstrative evidence at trial, defendant combines an argument based on this separate ground for objection with his relevancy argument.
Wells v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 573 So. 2d 223 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
The general law applicable to admissibility of demonstrative evidence, such as a blood sample or an illegal drug, as follows: To admit demonstrative evidence at trial, the law requires that the object be identified.
State v. Kimmel 571 So. 2d 208 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
State v. Valentine 570 So. 2d 533 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
[4] See, for example, lack of probable cause to hold on bond obligation moot after conviction; improper questioning during preliminary hearing moot after conviction.
State v. Carter 570 So. 2d 234 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
State v. Clayton 570 So. 2d 519 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
State v. *528 Sepulvado, appeal after remand (La.App.
State v. Mayeaux 570 So. 2d 185 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
State v. Perez 569 So. 2d 609 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
State v. Hebert 559 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
State v. Schmidt 558 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
State v. Morgan 557 So. 2d 977 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
State v. Papillion 556 So. 2d 1331 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
State v. Owens 554 So. 2d 294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Romero 552 So. 2d 45 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Richardson 550 So. 2d 961 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
appeal after remand (La.App.
State v. Welch 550 So. 2d 265 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
State v. Bailey 549 So. 2d 414 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
(5th Cir.1988); (5th Cir.1988).
State v. Hall 549 So. 2d 373 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
State v. Jackson 550 So. 2d 680 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
State v. Livings 548 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Collins 546 So. 2d 1246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Rinehart 544 So. 2d 1281 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972)
State v. Coleman 544 So. 2d 1302 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
State v. Bonhomme 544 So. 2d 640 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by