Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Martin, 458 So. 2d 454.

107 citing documents.

State of Louisiana Versus Enyel Bello-Urbina La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
Pablo Danilo Gonzalez Versus Destiny Wricks and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
State Of Louisiana v. Randall Paul Burton La. 2021
State of Louisiana v. Elvin Bryant Jinks, Jr. -Aka- Elvin Jinks La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
State v. Jinks 267 So. 3d 688 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
State v. Daniels 262 So. 3d 356 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
460 (La.1984) ; State v. Wiltz, 2008-1441, p. 7 (La.
State v. Brown 256 So. 3d 431 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
State v. Mosley 223 So. 3d 158 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Marcus Donte Reed 200 So. 3d 291 La. 2016
State of Louisiana v. Brian Keith Thomas La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
State v. Green 164 So. 3d 331 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
State v. Lloyd 161 So. 3d 879 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
State v. Greenberry 154 So. 3d 700 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
App. 4 Cir. 7/11/12), ; (La.
State in the Intrest C. V. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
“[c]onsidering the nature of the evidence which was excluded and the evidence which was received in this case, it is clear that the impact of the excluded evidence would have been minimal and that exclusion of the evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Likewise, considering the evidence
State ex rel. C.V. 134 So. 3d 211 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
“[c]onsidering the nature of the evidence which was excluded and the evidence which was received in this case, it is clear that the impact of the excluded evidence would have been minimal and that exclusion of the evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Likewise, considering the evidence that
State v. Lewis 110 So. 3d 644 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Magee 103 So. 3d 285 La. 2012
art. 803(3); (A hearsay statement establishing the speaker’s then existing state of mind is admissible to prove the speaker’s subsequent acts).
State v. Smith 96 So. 3d 678 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Wiltz, 2008-1441, p. 7 (La.App.
State v. Seals 83 So. 3d 285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Sarrio, 01-543, p. 17 (La.App.
State v. Richardson 71 So. 3d 492 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State of Louisiana v. Jonathan Edward Boyer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Boyer 56 So. 3d 1119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Cooper 42 So. 3d 460 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
State v. Zeigler 920 So. 2d 949 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Wade 908 So. 2d 1220 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
State v. Smith 906 So. 2d 391 La. 2005
In the present case, although the declarant signed a consent form authorizing the warrantless search of a motel room she shared with the defendant during police questioning at the station house, that statement, a direct assertion of her state of mind and therefore hearsay, did not constitute testimonial hearsay for purposes of Crawford because no objective person could have reasonably believed that the statement itself, as opposed to any real evidence that might result from an ensuing search, wo
State v. Cowden 889 So. 2d 1075 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
State v. Sarrio, 01-543 (La.App.
State v. Smith 862 So. 2d 240 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
Phillips v. Joseph Management Services, Inc. 861 So. 2d 625 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
State v. Taylor 838 So. 2d 729 La. 2003
art. 803(3)(providing hearsay exceptions for statements of then existing state of mind offered to prove defendant's future acts); and were relevant to defendant's motive and intent.
State v. Bowie 813 So. 2d 377 La. 2002
("[S]uch time considerations generally go to the weight of the evidence rather than to its admissibility.").
State v. Maise 805 So. 2d 1141 La. 2002
State v. Sarrio 803 So. 2d 212 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. McCullough 774 So. 2d 1105 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
State v. Maise 759 So. 2d 884 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Hotoph 750 So. 2d 1036 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State v. Langley 711 So. 2d 651 La. 1998
(citing Shepard v. United States, 290 U.S. 96 , 54 S.Ct.
State v. Batiste 708 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
State v. Everidge 702 So. 2d 680 La. 1997
State v. Schexnayder 685 So. 2d 357 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
State v. Colligan 679 So. 2d 184 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
State v. Pipkins 628 So. 2d 1242 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Whether victim’s threats against Ester Pipkins are hearsay (a direct assertion of speaker’s state of mind) or non-hearsay (a declaration tending to indirectly establish the declarant’s state of mind), and the La.C.E.
State v. Marr 626 So. 2d 40 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
State v. Dixon 620 So. 2d 904 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
State v. Gantt 616 So. 2d 1300 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
State v. Robertson 615 So. 2d 1036 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
State v. Montgomery 598 So. 2d 553 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
State v. Yarbrough 596 So. 2d 311 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
State v. Mosby 581 So. 2d 1060 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
State v. Gladney 577 So. 2d 1179 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991