Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Trahan, 576 So. 2d 1.

58 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Jordan Mitchell Zaykis Bolden Dylan Johnson La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2026
State of Louisiana Versus Shyheem Tyje Love La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana v. Michael R. Suydam, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
“Intoxication is an ‘other condition’ bearing on the issue of whether the defendant had the mental state for the offense charged.” (emphasis added).
State of Louisiana v. Patrick Conley La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
denied, 142 S. Ct. 1702, 212 L. Ed. 2d 596 (2022); (La.
State of Louisiana v. Brynton Kelli Simmons La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2021
State Of Louisiana v. David H. Brown (Parish of Lafourche) Convictions Affirmed; Death Sentences Reversed; Case Remanded For … La. 2021
This Court has stated that “[t]he purpose of sequestration is to assure a witness will testify as to his own knowledge.” (La.
State of Louisiana v. Frank Jauron Stringfellow La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2021
Jerry L. Mallet and Gail A. Mallet v. Kathy Mallet Montgomery La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
although recognizing that disqualification it is a drastic remedy only to be imposed as a last resort, found it appropriate in that case when the sequestration violation was committed with the consent, connivance, procurement or knowledge of the party calling the witnesses.
Palmer v. UV Ins. Risk Retention Grp., Inc. 262 So. 3d 1006 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Lynn 251 So. 3d 1262 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
State v. Magee 243 So. 3d 151 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State of Louisiana v. Timothy H. Queen -Aka- Timothy Hugh Queen La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
State v. Queen 237 So. 3d 547 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State of Louisiana v. Marlon Frank Thomas La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
1 Cir.), writ denied, (1993) ().
State v. Thomas 217 So. 3d 651 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
1 Cir.), writ denied, (1993) ().
State v. Calderon 220 So. 3d 830 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Otkins-Victor 193 So. 3d 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Victor 195 So. 3d 128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State of Louisiana Versus Errol Victor, Sr. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2016
State v. Griffin 176 So. 3d 561 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
In a subsequent case, the Supreme Court noted that it had emphasized in the Gremillion case that the exception employed there was a very unusual exception to the rules of evidence and should be “sparingly applied.” Trahan, 576 So.2d at 11 (quoting Gremillion, 542 So.2d at 1079 ) (Lemmon, J., assigning additional reasons).
State v. Sullivan 146 So. 3d 952 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
|14the supreme court held that the trial court properly excluded evidence related to defendant’s intoxication because the record did not demonstrate that defendant gave the required notice under Article 726.
State v. Smoot 134 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Brown 131 So. 3d 207 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Gross 110 So. 3d 1173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Smith 90 So. 3d 1114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Franklin 87 So. 3d 860 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Stewart 46 So. 3d 714 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
State v. Russell, supra.
State v. Lamonica 44 So. 3d 895 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Prejean 24 So. 3d 1033 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Beaner 974 So. 2d 667 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
State v. Monroe, supra ; State v. Garner, supra ; State v. Rhodes, 29,207 (La.App.2d Cir.01/22/97), , 639 writ denied, XXXX-XXXX (La.9/26/97), .
State v. Russell 966 So. 2d 154 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
State v. Monroe, supra ; State v. Garner, supra ; State v. Rhodes, 29,207 (La.App.
State v. Desoto 968 So. 2d 146 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
In support of his argument, (La.
State of Louisiana v. Jake C. Desoto La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
The defendant contends the state was “attempting to introduce a recreation or reconstruction of the scene of the accident that is not admissible, due to admittedly substantial inaccuracies, through the back door by claiming its relevance was only to show magnification and that Detective Fennell had a hard time taking pictures.” In support of his argument, wherein, the supreme court discussed reconstructed evidence and the standard applicable thereto.
State v. Marsalis 902 So. 2d 1081 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Manning 885 So. 2d 1044 La. 2004
Bourque, 622 So.2d at 237
State v. Prudhomme 819 So. 2d 443 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
In a subsequent case, the supreme court refused to apply Simpson retroactively even to a case that was on direct review when Simpson was rendered.
State v. Johnson 796 So. 2d 201 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
( order granting certiorari recalled on rehearing ); State v. Smith, 95-1826 (La.App.
State v. Johnson 778 So. 2d 706 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
State v. Coleman 756 So. 2d 1218 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
In support of his claim that the videotape as "reconstructed evidence" is inadmissible
State v. Brooks 734 So. 2d 1232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
State v. Washington 727 So. 2d 673 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
333 , 102 L.Ed.2d 281 (1988)
State v. Washington 727 So. 2d 673 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
333 , 102 L.Ed.2d 281 (1988)
State v. Bradford 700 So. 2d 1046 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
State v. McCartney 684 So. 2d 416 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
3 Cir.1989), writ granted, affirmed
State v. Smith 681 So. 2d 980 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
(order granting certiorari recalled on rehearing).
State v. Lewis 654 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
State v. Busby 653 So. 2d 140 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
State v. Harvey 649 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
The Louisiana Supreme Court has held in regards to a reenactment that "`[t]he probative value of such an experiment or reconstructed evidence depends in large measure upon the extent to which the reconstructed scene was identical to or similar to that which existed at the time the incident happened.'"
State v. Stelly 645 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
App. 3rd Cir.1989), affirmed
State v. Gibson 644 So. 2d 1093 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994