Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Banks, 439 So. 2d 407.

51 citing documents.

State v. Placide 109 So. 3d 394 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
231 , 121 L.Ed.2d 167 (1992); Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct.
State v. Boatner 861 So. 2d 149 La. 2003
State v. Berkeley 788 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Cosey 779 So. 2d 675 La. 2000
State v. Butler 760 So. 2d 322 La. 2000
Counsel did not object to testimony regarding the informant’s tip, despite its hearsay character, and the testimony therefore became substantive evidence for jurors to consider “to the extent of its rational persuasive power.” 1 McCormick on Evidence, § 54, p. 242 (John W. Strong ed., 5th ed.1999); (“Ordinarily, if hearsay evidence is admitted witho
State v. Berry 684 So. 2d 439 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
State v. Beason 653 So. 2d 1274 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
State v. Rubin 649 So. 2d 1240 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
(officer's testimony that an informant told him defendant was standing on a particular street corner waiting to buy ten bags of heroin from a New York dealer was inadmissible and prejudicial hearsay); (officer's testimony that an informant told him the defendant com
State v. Soraparu 649 So. 2d 1100 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
State v. Harris 627 So. 2d 788 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
State v. Preston 623 So. 2d 938 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
State v. Hearold 603 So. 2d 731 La. 1992
(officer's testimony that an informant told him defendant was standing on a particular street corner waiting to buy ten bags of heroin from a New York dealer was inadmissible and prejudicial hearsay); (officer's testimony that an informant told him the defendant com
State v. Taylor 593 So. 2d 431 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
State v. Thomas 587 So. 2d 182 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
to support his assertion of error.
State v. Young 576 So. 2d 1048 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
State v. Veals 576 So. 2d 566 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
appeal after remand (La.App.
State v. Williams 569 So. 2d 1031 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Edwards 569 So. 2d 597 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
State v. Stamm 569 So. 2d 85 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Berryhill 562 So. 2d 1105 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
State v. White 559 So. 2d 541 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
State v. Swayze 554 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Smith 554 So. 2d 676 La. 1989
(erroneous denial of admission of evidence); later appeal, (La.App.
State v. Johnson 550 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
While admission of this information was error, it does not require a reversal of the defendant’s conviction.
State v. Brown 549 So. 2d 323 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Bell 543 So. 2d 965 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
State v. Ray 542 So. 2d 1124 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Wells 538 So. 2d 1053 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
State v. Mullins 537 So. 2d 386 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
State v. Lee 533 So. 2d 399 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Nelson 524 So. 2d 199 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Brunet 521 So. 2d 594 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Taplette 519 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Lapworth 517 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
defendant claims that the admission of the statements constitutes reversible error.
State v. Franklin 520 So. 2d 1047 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
State v. Walters 514 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
State v. Narcisse 512 So. 2d 565 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Alexander 504 So. 2d 591 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Gray 502 So. 2d 1114 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
State v. Fernandez 499 So. 2d 1220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Smith 489 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
State v. Jones 478 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
State v. Reynolds 473 So. 2d 886 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
State v. Phillips 471 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
State v. Hoyt 464 So. 2d 841 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
appellant maintains that the reviewing court will not be able to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the hearsay testimony did not contribute to the guilty verdict.
State v. Koll 463 So. 2d 774 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
has stated that: The appropriate standard of review to be applied in determining the effect of the improper admission of evidence is whether “ ‘the court [can] ...
State v. Garay 453 So. 2d 1003 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
and State v. Anderson, supra, this case was tried to a judge, not a jury.
State v. Anderson 450 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Westfall 446 So. 2d 1292 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
[Compare, where the inadmissible hearsay was the only information to that effect in the entire case and not "cumulative"; where the court held possible inadmissible inculpatory statement would constitute "harmless error" because more "self condemning" statements given prior to t
State v. Wright 446 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984