Cited by

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

107 citing documents.

State v. Ross 572 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Moore 569 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Dietrich 567 So. 2d 623 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Brown 562 So. 2d 868 La. 1990
State v. Batiste 561 So. 2d 999 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Jones 558 So. 2d 546 La. 1990
and Pugh, Louisiana Evidence Law 415 n. 8 (letter written to defendant admissible to show defendant's belief that he had authority to sell and that he did not act with criminal intent).
State v. Lee 559 So. 2d 1310 La. 1990
818 , 102 L.Ed.2d 807 (1989); and to assess the state of mind of the declarant, at the time the statement was made, if relevant to an issue before the jury.
State v. Adams 550 So. 2d 595 La. 1989
State v. Smith 554 So. 2d 676 La. 1989
(erroneous denial of admission of evidence); later appeal, (La.App.
State v. Anderson 550 So. 2d 797 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
State v. Jones 544 So. 2d 1209 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Holland 544 So. 2d 461 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
State v. Cornelius 539 So. 2d 919 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
The test for harmless error, adopted by the Louisiana Supreme Court, states that "the question is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the admission or exclusion of certain evidence, depending on the case `might have contributed to the conviction.'"
State v. Lewis 537 So. 2d 1315 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Warren 538 So. 2d 1036 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
(citations omitted) -61 (La.1984).
State v. Mullins 537 So. 2d 386 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
State v. Riley 532 So. 2d 1174 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
the trial court determined that the testimony was admissible.
State v. Clark 529 So. 2d 1353 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Dewhirst 527 So. 2d 475 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
State v. Robinson 525 So. 2d 708 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), we find that there was sufficient evidence for the conviction.
State v. Robinson 525 So. 2d 712 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), we find that there was sufficient evidence for the conviction.
State v. Doss 522 So. 2d 1274 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
State v. Tarver 521 So. 2d 601 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Owens 521 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Smith 520 So. 2d 1252 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
State v. Schrader 518 So. 2d 1024 La. 1988
State v. LeBlanc 517 So. 2d 951 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
State v. Huddleston 517 So. 2d 902 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Tyner 517 So. 2d 1005 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Cotton 511 So. 2d 1207 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State v. Francosi 511 So. 2d 1181 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
-61 (La.1984) (citations omitted).
State v. Lamothe 511 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Narcisse 512 So. 2d 565 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Robertson 509 So. 2d 95 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
(citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct.
State v. Lambert 503 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Burns 504 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
With regard to Kathy Lee's testimony, contains a thorough discussion of the stateof-mind exception to the hearsay rule.
State v. Firstley 503 So. 2d 568 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Darby 502 So. 2d 274 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
15:438 `may not establish a stricter standard of review than the more general reasonable juror's reasonable doubt formula, [but] it emphasizes the need for careful observance of the usual standard, and provides a helpful methodology for its implementation in cases which hinge on the evaluation of circumstantial evidence.'" rehearing denied; and, rehearing denied.
State v. Guillory 502 So. 2d 258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Under the ‘harmless error’ test, it must be determined ‘whether there is a reasonable possibility that the admission or exclusion of certain evidence, depending on the case, might have contributed to the conviction’ and further that the reviewing court ‘must be able to declare that the error was “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” ’ Gibson, supra.” (La.App.
State v. Broadnax 503 So. 2d 511 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
In short there is no reasonable possibility that the exclusion of this evidence contributed to the conviction, and we reach this conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt
State v. Malveaux 499 So. 2d 301 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Batista 496 So. 2d 1165 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
State v. Green 491 So. 2d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
24, 1986); State v. Ardoin, 128 La.
State v. Barnes 491 So. 2d 42 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
State v. Ardoin, 128 La.
State v. Barnes 489 So. 2d 402 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
State v. Walker 489 So. 2d 353 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Also, the Louisiana Supreme Court has adopted the “harmless error” test, it must be determined "whether there is a reasonable possibility that the admission or exclusion of certain evidence, depending on the case, might have contributed to the conviction.” at p. 6.
State v. Ford 489 So. 2d 1250 La. 1986
State v. Heck 486 So. 2d 915 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
art. 821, and recently reiterated in State v. *917 Martin, we find that there was sufficient evidence upon which a rational trier of fact could base a conviction, i.e., a finding that all elements of the crime were proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. Cook 485 So. 2d 606 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
State v. Green 483 So. 2d 957 La. 1986
State v. Ardoin, 128 La.