Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Nash, 475 So. 2d 752.

56 citing documents.

Keith Ezidore Versus Timothy Hooper, Warden La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2025
Vale, 666 So.2d at 1072; -756 (La.1985); (When circumstances indicated the witness might have received the impression that testimony favorable to the State would result in dropping of charges against him, defendant was entitled to new trial where informat
Parish of Jefferson Versus Gail Fayard & Cheryl Kirsch La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2025
State Ex Rel. Darrell J. Robinson v. Darrel Vannoy, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Angola, Louisiana La. 2024
1980) (collecting cases); -56 (La.
State Ex Rel. Darrell J. Robinson v. Darrel Vannoy, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Angola, Louisiana La. 2024
1980) (collecting cases); -56 (La.
State v. Neely 171 So. 3d 1022 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
rous decisions by this court that to the extent exposure of a witness’s motivation is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination, a witness’s “hope or knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.” (collecting cases); -56 (La.1985).
State of Louisiana v. Warren Ray Gautreaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
tion is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination, a witness’s “hope or knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.” (collecting cases); -56 (La.1985).
State v. Gautreaux 153 So. 3d 1232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Louisiana Supreme Court stated: [T]o the extent exposure of a witness’s motivation is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination, a witness’s “hope or knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.” (collecting cases); -56 (La.1985) A witness’s bias or interest may arise from arrests or pending criminal charges, or the prospect of prosecution, even when he has made no agreements with t
State of Louisiana v. Quint Mire La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Vale, 666 So.2d at 1072; –756 (La.1985); (When circumstances indicated the witness might have received the impression that testimony favorable to the State would result in dropping of charges against him, defendant was entitled to new trial where information was not revealed.)
State v. Mire 149 So. 3d 981 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Vale, 666 So.2d at 1072 ; -756 (La.1985); (When circumstances indicated the witness might have received the impression that testimony favorable to the State would result in dropping of charges against him, defendant was entitled to new trial where information was not revealed.)
State v. Scott 131 So. 3d 501 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Quinn 123 So. 3d 320 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
rous decisions by this court that to the extent exposure of a witness’s motivation is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination, a witness’s “hope or knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.” (collecting cases); -56 (La.1985).
State v. Mills 120 So. 3d 802 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
rous decisions by this court that to the extent exposure of a witness’s motivation is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination, a witness’s “hope or knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.” (collecting cases); -56 (La.1985).
State of Louisiana v. Sean Bernard Newton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Vale, 666 So.2d at 1072; -756 (La.1985); (When circumstances indicated the witness might have received the impression that testimony favorable to the State would result in dropping of charges 11 against him, defendant
State of Louisiana v. Nina Lambert Newton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Vale, 666 So.2d at 1072; -756 (La.1985); (When circumstances indicated the witness might have received the impression that testimony favorable to the State would result in dropping of charges against him, defendant was entitled to new trial where information
State v. Newton 129 So. 3d 25 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Vale, 666 So.2d at 1072 ; -756 (La.1985); (When circumstances indicated the witness might have received the impression that testimony favorable to the State would result in dropping of charges against him, defendant was entitled to new trial where information was not revealed.)
State v. Newton 129 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Vale, 666 So.2d at 1072 ; -756 (La.1985); (When circumstances indicated the witness might have received the impression that testimony favorable to the State would result in dropping of charges |12against him, defendant was entitled to new trial where information was not revealed.)
State v. Simmons 85 So. 3d 743 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
1980) (collecting cases); -56 (La.1985).
State v. Pleasant 66 So. 3d 51 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
rous decisions by this court that to the extent exposure of a witness’s motivation is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination, a witness’s “hope or knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.” (collecting cases); -56 (La.1985).
State v. Sparks 68 So. 3d 435 La. 2011
Vale, 666 So.2d at 1072 ; -756 (La.1985); (When circumstances indicated the witness might have received the impression that testimony favorable to the State would result in dropping of charges against him, defendant was entitled to new trial where information was not revealed.)
State of Louisiana v. Jonathan Edward Boyer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
hat to the extent exposure of a witness’s motivation is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination, a witness’s “hope or knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.” (collecting cases); -56 (La.1985).
State v. Boyer 56 So. 3d 1119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
rous decisions by this court that to the extent exposure of a witness’s motivation is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination, a witness’s “hope or knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.” (collecting cases); -56 (La.1985).
State v. Thompson 10 So. 3d 851 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
rous decisions by this court that to the extent exposure of a witness’s motivation is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination, a witness’s “hope or knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.” (collecting cases); -56 (La.1985).
State v. Lawrence 5 So. 3d 896 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
art. 607(D); State v. Chester, 97-2790, p. 15 (La.12/1/98), .
State v. Merwin 984 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
art. 607(D); State v. Chester, 97-2790, p. 15 (La.12/1/98), , cert.
State v. MICELOTTI 984 So. 2d 847 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
art. 607(D); State v. Chester, 97-2790, p. 15 (La.12/1/98), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Jim Van Nguyen La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
In support of his argument, wherein the supreme court rejected the trial court’s limitation of the cross-examination of a cooperating witness on parole.
State v. Burbank 893 So. 2d 109 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
defense counsel was prohibited from questioning a crucial state witness about the fact that he was on parole from a theft conviction in Oklahoma (although the witness did testify as to the theft conviction) or about the fact that he had not been arrested or prosecuted for the drug activity which preceded th
State v. Nguyen 888 So. 2d 900 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
State v. Robinson, 02-1253, pp. 7-8 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Kiley M. Williams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
To the extent that exposure of a witness's motivation "is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination," this Court has held on numerous occasions that a witness's "hope or knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest."
State v. Williams 878 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
To the extent that exposure of a witness's motivation "is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination," this Court has held on numerous occasions that a witness's "hope or knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest."
State v. Morgan 863 So. 2d 520 La. 2004
State v. Williams 844 So. 2d 832 La. 2003
To the extent that exposure of a witness's motivation "is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination," this Court has held on numerous occasions that a witness's "hope or knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest."
State v. Robinson 846 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State v. Bowie 813 So. 2d 377 La. 2002
607(C),(D) (authorizing admission of intrinsic and extrinsic evidence to show bias, interest or corruption); -1063 (La.1985); -755 (La.1985); , 681 (La.1985); (La.
State v. Robichaux 788 So. 2d 458 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
1105, 1110 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974)
State v. Thomas 747 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
State v. Chester 724 So. 2d 1276 La. 1999
State v. Butler 714 So. 2d 877 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
(collecting cases); -56 (La.1985).
Delaney v. Whitney Nat. Bank 703 So. 2d 709 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
State v. Schexnayder 685 So. 2d 357 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
(collecting cases); -56 (La.1985).
State v. Clark 670 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
State v. Vale 666 So. 2d 1070 La. 1996
(collecting cases); -56 (La.1985).
State v. Dunn 651 So. 2d 1378 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
at 1110 , 39 L.Ed.2d at 353 ; -755 (La.1985); -1060 (La.1981)
State v. Gates 630 So. 2d 1345 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
State v. Sherman 630 So. 2d 321 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
State v. Harrison 560 So. 2d 450 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); (La.
State v. Glenn 553 So. 2d 988 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Bennett 550 So. 2d 201 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Tassin 536 So. 2d 402 La. 1988
State v. Muntz 534 So. 2d 1317 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
[1105] at 1110, 39 L.Ed.2d [347] at 353 [1974]; -755 (La.1985); -1060 (La.1981)