DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Gremillion, 542 So. 2d 1074.

75 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Jimmie Dixon, Jr. La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
  • State of Louisiana v. Sterling Terrel Brown La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
    2/18/19), and State v. Van Winkle, 94-947 (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Darrell Clark La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
    1920, 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967)
  • State of Louisiana v. William G Perkins La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
  • State of Louisiana v. Joshua Patrick Raved La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
    However, under the constitutional guarantees affording a criminal defendant the right to present a defense, there is a jurisprudentially developed “compelling-circumstances exception.”
  • State v. Galle 267 So. 3d 114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
    1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967) ; (La.
  • State v. Williams 265 So. 3d 902 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
    1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967) ; State v. Gremillion , (La.
  • State v. Lynn 251 So. 3d 1262 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
    In support of this argument, the defendant cites State v. Gremillion , (La.
  • State v. Nixon 250 So. 3d 273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    6/30/95), , 202 ; State v. Gremillion , , 1078 (La.
  • State v. Wilson 220 So. 3d 35 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    11/6/15), , 491 (per curiam), (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Jeffrey Clark 220 So. 3d 583 La. 2016
    6/30/95), -02 (holding that the exclusion of hearsay evidence suggesting that the defendant’s roommate killed the victim was reversible error); (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Robert Glen Coleman 188 So. 3d 174 La. 2016
  • State v. Rubin 183 So. 3d 490 La. 2015
    (“While the statement does not fit into any of the recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule, it should have, nevertheless, been admitted into evidence due to its reliability and trustworthy nature.”); see also Chambers v. Mississippi 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct.
  • State v. Griffin 176 So. 3d 561 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    State v. Juniors, 03-2425, pp. 44-45 (La.6/29/05), -26 (citing State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947 (La.6/30/95), )
  • State v. Edwards 133 So. 3d 132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Smoot 134 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    On appeal, in support of his argument that the anonymous tip was erroneously excluded.
  • State v. Marcelin 116 So. 3d 928 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967)
  • State v. Jackson 115 So. 3d 1155 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    4 Cir. 10/6/10) , -29 ; State v. Van Winkle, supra
  • State v. Thomas 106 So. 3d 665 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967); *675
  • State v. Hugle 104 So. 3d 598 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967); -79 (La.1989)
  • State v. Joyner 107 So. 3d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967)
  • State v. Everett 96 So. 3d 605 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    State v. Juniors, 03-2425, pp. 44-45 (La.6/29/05), -26 , citing State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947 (La.6/30/95)
  • State v. Franklin 87 So. 3d 860 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    5 Cir. 4/26/05) , -89 (citing State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947 (La.6/30/95), ; ).
  • State of Louisiana v. Jonathan Edward Boyer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    1920, 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967)
  • State v. Boyer 56 So. 3d 1119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967)
  • State v. Fernandez 50 So. 3d 219 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947 (La.6/30/95), ; see also Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct.
  • State v. TRUEHILL 38 So. 3d 1246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Hearsay statements are inadmissible unless they fit into one of the recognized exceptions.” (La.
  • State v. Laster 33 So. 3d 259 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
  • State of Louisiana v. Joseph T. Plauche La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    which held that the victim’s sense of impending death rests on an evaluation of her subjective experience with the pivotal question of what the declarant believed as to her physical condition.
  • State v. Plauche 32 So. 3d 852 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    which held that the victim’s sense of impending death rests on an evaluation of her subjective experience with the pivotal question of what the declarant believed as to her physical condition.
  • State v. Johnson 28 So. 3d 1167 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967); (La.
  • State v. Ramirez 30 So. 3d 833 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    On appeal, defendant argues that the victim’s
  • State v. Sartain 2 So. 3d 1132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967)
  • State v. Holmes 5 So. 3d 42 La. 2008
    See State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947 (La.6/30/95), ; (La.
  • State v. Hebert 986 So. 2d 256 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
  • State v. Lathan 953 So. 2d 890 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973); State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947 (La.6/30/95), ; (La.
  • State v. Stukes 944 So. 2d 679 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967); (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Calvin Joseph Celestine, II La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • State v. Juniors 915 So. 2d 291 La. 2005
    State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947 (La.6/30/95)
  • State v. Marsalis 902 So. 2d 1081 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947 (La.6/30/95)
  • State v. Higgins 898 So. 2d 1219 La. 2005
    See State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947, p. 7 (La.6/30/95), (finding reversible error to exclude hearsay evidence suggesting that defendant's roommate killed victim); ("While the statement does not fit into any of the recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule, it should have, nevertheless, been admitted into evidence due to its reliability and trustworthy nature."); see also Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct.
  • State v. Robinson 846 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
  • State v. Johnson 775 So. 2d 670 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • State v. Hopkins 774 So. 2d 1178 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
  • State v. McCullough 774 So. 2d 1105 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967)
  • State v. Cosey 779 So. 2d 675 La. 2000
    1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967); -1079 (La.
  • State v. McBride 773 So. 2d 849 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    3 Cir.1992): the court held that an otherwise inadmissible hearsay statement which does not fit into one of the recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule should be admitted if it is reliable and trustworthy and to exclude it would interfere with defendant's constitutional right to present a defense.
  • State v. Green 735 So. 2d 723 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967); (La.
  • State v. Cooks 720 So. 2d 637 La. 1998
    See State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947 (La.6/30/95), ; (on rehearing).
  • State v. Shanks 715 So. 2d 157 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    we recognized that while hearsay should generally be excluded, if it is reliable and trustworthy and its exclusion would interfere with the defendant's constitutional right to present a defense, it should be admitted.