Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. White, 450 So. 2d 648.

31 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Elvin Bryant Jinks, Jr. -Aka- Elvin Jinks La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
art. 105 (“When evidence which is admissible as to one party or for one purpose but not admissible as to another party or for another purpose is admitted, the court, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly.”)
State v. Jinks 267 So. 3d 688 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
art. 105 ("When evidence which is admissible as to one party or for one purpose but not admissible as to another party or for another purpose is admitted, the court, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly."); , 651 (La.1984).
State v. Smith 868 So. 2d 794 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
State v. Morgan 842 So. 2d 1126 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Defense counsel urged the motion following the testimony of the sergeant, arguing that his testimony at the conclusion of the state’s direct examination constituted giving an opinion on an ultimate issue of guilt, the intent to distribute
State v. Ducre 827 So. 2d 1120 La. 2002
Although the court of appeal rested its decision on jurisprudence in this Court precluding expert testimony tantamount to an opinion that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged, -51 (La.
State v. Ducre 809 So. 2d 1033 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Johnson 780 So. 2d 403 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
The defendant argues that this testimony constituted giving an opinion on an ultimate issue of guilt, the intent to distribute, (La.App.
State v. Owunta 761 So. 2d 528 La. 2000
art. 105 ("When evidence which is admissible as to one party or for one purpose but not admissible as to another party or for another purpose is admitted, the court, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its *531 proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly.")
State v. Hollins 742 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State v. Cousin 710 So. 2d 1065 La. 1998
State v. Williams, 258 La.
State v. Trahan 637 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Montana, 421 So.2d at 899-900 ; Wheeler, 416 So.2d at 81-82 .
State v. Jackson 629 So. 2d 1374 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
State v. Jackson 629 So. 2d 1374 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
State v. Code 627 So. 2d 1373 La. 1993
State v. Lions 624 So. 2d 436 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
a drug distribution conviction was reversed because the expert police officer did testify directly about the defendant's guilt and did thereby usurp the jury's function as finders of facts.
State v. Daniels 614 So. 2d 97 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
e condemns the use of hypothetical questions which parallel the actual fact situation of the case when the prosecutor gets the expert witness to give an opinion that the person described "would be involved in the distribution of marijuana," or an opinion that the person described "would be there for the purpose of selling or distributing,"
State v. Raiford 600 So. 2d 924 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
The defendant argues that this testimony constituted giving an opinion on an ultimate issue of guilt, the intent to distribute, (La.App.
State v. Evans 593 So. 2d 900 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
State v. Bosworth 593 So. 2d 1356 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
In Wheeler, Montana, the defendant was convicted of possession with intent to distribute drugs.
State v. Green 590 So. 2d 825 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
State v. Mitchell 572 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
State v. Tassin 536 So. 2d 402 La. 1988
State v. Mims 524 So. 2d 526 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
State v. Johnson 514 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State v. Jefferson 511 So. 2d 794 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Similarly, the Supreme Court found that an answer to a hypothetical question was in fact an expression of opinion as to the defendant’s guilt, and reversed the conviction.
State v. Freeman 503 So. 2d 501 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
State v. Barbre 499 So. 2d 1324 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
a heroin distribution case, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated the following: "Clearly, an expert in drug distribution can give his opinion as to practices about which the average juror would have no competence.
State v. Valentine 496 So. 2d 378 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
Such an expert, however, cannot give his opinion on the ultimate issue of the defendant's guilt or respond that an individual is or is not distributing drugs in a hypothetical question paralleling the actual fact situation before the court.
State v. Sams 487 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Rushing 464 So. 2d 268 La. 1985
State v. Dabney 452 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
1982), (1984), the Louisiana Supreme Court condemned the use of such testimony as a usurpation of the jury's function.