Cited by

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

75 citing documents.

State v. Perkins 716 So. 2d 120 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
State v. Winn 705 So. 2d 1271 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
In support of its assertion that a court may carve out such an exception, (La.
State v. Nicholson 703 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
the victim died of traumatic pancreatitis seventeen days and two surgeries after he was beaten.
State v. Corley 703 So. 2d 653 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
App. 3 Cir.1992), the court stated: 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. Brown 702 So. 2d 744 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967)
State v. Smith 687 So. 2d 529 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973) (La.
State v. Lavalais 685 So. 2d 1048 La. 1996
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.
State v. Smith 681 So. 2d 980 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
State v. Clark 670 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
_]¾⅛ -1079 (La.1989) the court explained: 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.
UNITED INVESTORS LIFE v. Alexander 662 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
The supreme court in Buckbee makes a a case where it found that a decedent's statement, although hearsay, was admissible.
State ex rel. D.F. 660 So. 2d 913 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
However, there is the right of a defendant to present a defense; and, the Supreme court cited that right in holding that an unsworn statement made by the victim before |Bhis death was admissible under La.
State v. Van Winkle 658 So. 2d 198 La. 1995
1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967)
Sattler v. Hammond 640 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
3d Cir.1988), reversed on other grounds
State v. Hill 636 So. 2d 999 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
wherein a conviction for manslaughter was reversed because the trial judge refused to allow into evidence the victim's statement to a testifying police officer.
Russell ex rel. Wunstell v. Kossover 634 So. 2d 72 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
State v. Taylor 621 So. 2d 141 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
3d Cir.1988), reversed on other grounds (1989).
State v. Hill 610 So. 2d 1080 La. Ct. App. 3d 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. Brown 594 So. 2d 372 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
State v. Veal 583 So. 2d 901 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Louisiana Code of Evidence article 801(C.)
State v. Martin 582 So. 2d 306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
art. 1, § 16; -79 (La.1989).
State v. McGuire 577 So. 2d 1120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
for the proposition that an interval of nineteen hours is too long to constitute res gestae.
State v. Trahan 576 So. 2d 1 La. 1991
for the proposition that hearsay may be admissible even in the absence of a recognized exception if it is "reliable and trustworthy and its exclusion would interfere with defendant's constitutional right to present a defense."
Cole Oil & Tire Co., Inc. v. Davis 567 So. 2d 122 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
Buckbee v. United Gas Pipe Line Co. Inc. 561 So. 2d 76 La. 1990
*83 where, guided by the residual hearsay exception standard in L.C.E.
State v. Hubmer 553 So. 2d 1056 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
3 Cir.1988), reversed on other grounds, this court held that the State was entitled to an instruction on principals where there was evidence that the victim’s ex-wife participated with the defendant in kicking the victim which resulted in the victim’s death, even though she was not a co-defendant.