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. Hammons, 597 So. 2d 990.

66 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Jeremy Wilson La. 2018
  • State v. Raine 238 So. 3d 1076 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    State v. Hammons , , 996 (La.
  • State v. Mosley 223 So. 3d 158 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
  • State v. Wilson 220 So. 3d 35 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    “Admission of statements against interest, as a traditional exception to the hearsay rule, is based on necessity and trustworthiness.” (La.
  • State v. Chambers 212 So. 3d 643 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
  • State of Louisiana v. Robert Glen Coleman 188 So. 3d 174 La. 2016
  • State of Louisiana v. Lamondre Tucker 181 So. 3d 590 La. 2015
    ewly discovered evidence,” the defendant has the burden of showing that “(1) the new evidence was discovered after trial, (2) the failure to discover the evidence at the time of the trial was not caused by lack of diligence, (3) the evidence is material to the issues at trial, and (4) the evidence is of such a nature that it would probably have produced a different verdict.” (La.
  • State v. Armstead 159 So. 3d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    “If the evidence supporting the guilty verdict contains significant contradictions and discrepancies, newly discovered evidence of relatively minor importance might be sufficient.”
  • State of Louisiana v. Quincy McKinnies, Jr. 171 So. 3d 861 La. 2014
    State v. Watts, 2000-0602, p. 6 (La.1/14/03); , citing also State v. Cavalier, 1996-3052, 1997-0103, p. 3 (La.10/31/97)
  • State v. Taylor 143 So. 3d 1248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    “If the evidence supporting the guilty verdict | incontains significant contradictions and discrepancies, newly discovered evidence of relatively minor importance might be sufficient....”
  • State v. Everett 156 So. 3d 705 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Scott 131 So. 3d 501 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    State v. Lewis, 2005-0973, pp. 3M (La.App.
  • State v. Thomas 131 So. 3d 84 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    State v.Watts, 2000-0602, p. 6 (La.1/14/03), .
  • State of Louisiana v. Jason Lamounte Morgan La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
  • State of Louisiana v. Byran Louis Fogleman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    -97 (La.1992) (footnotes omitted), the supreme court summarized the history of this fundamental right as follows: Louisiana’s rule as to statements against penal interest is closely patterned after Fed.R.Evid.
  • State v. Fogleman 98 So. 3d 964 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    -97 (La.1992) (footnotes omitted), the supreme court summarized the history of this fundamental right as follows: Louisiana’s rule as to statements against penal interest is closely patterned after Fed.R.Evid.
  • State of Louisiana v. Brandon Dale Allen La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
  • State v. Allen 79 So. 3d 1220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • State of Louisiana v. Jonathan Edward Boyer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    The Louisiana Supreme Court summarized the history of the rule regarding statements made against penal interest for the purpose of a defendant’s fundamental right to present a -97 (La.1992): Louisiana’s rule as to statements against penal interest is closely patterned after Fed.R.Evid.
  • State v. Boyer 56 So. 3d 1119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    The Louisiana Supreme Court summarized the history of the rule regarding statements made against penal interest for the purpose of a defendant’s fundamental right to present a -97 (La.1992): Louisiana’s rule as to statements against penal interest is closely patterned after Fed.R.Evid.
  • State v. Bell 53 So. 3d 437 La. 2010
  • State v. Vallier 34 So. 3d 1168 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    See State v. Cavalier, 96-3052, 97-0103, p. 3 (La.10/31/97), ; Knapper, 555 So.2d at 1339 .
  • State of Louisiana v. Carey Vallier, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    See State v. Cavalier, 96-3052, 97-0103, p. 3 (La.10/31/97), Knapper, 555 So.2d at 1339.
  • State of Louisiana v. Terrell Stipe La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • State v. Stipe 30 So. 3d 287 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • State of Louisiana v. Richard W. Black La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • State v. Woodard 977 So. 2d 308 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
  • State v. Coleman 959 So. 2d 465 La. 2007
    See State v. Cavalier, 96-3052, 97-0103, p. 3 (La.10/31/97), ; Knapper, 555 So.2d at 1339 .
  • State v. LeBlanc 951 So. 2d 1087 La. 2007
    1st Cir.1990), writ denied, reconsideration granted, rev’d, Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, I would have granted this application.
  • State v. Lewis 943 So. 2d 1100 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
  • State v. Persley 918 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    Finally, which stated: The newly discovered evidence, it if had been admitted at defendant's trial, would have tended to discredit the eyewitness testimony which was already undermined by inconsistencies and discrepancies, by lack of physical evidence, by significant alibi evidence and by the fingerprint on the adhe
  • State v. Leonard 910 So. 2d 977 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    the Louisiana Supreme Court explained as follows: When the statement is one against the declarant's penal interest, the circumstances surrounding the making of the *987 statement may be significant in determining its trustworthiness.
  • State v. Bailey 875 So. 2d 949 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
  • State v. Smith 862 So. 2d 240 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    art. 804(B)(3); -996 (La.1992).
  • State of Louisiana v. Elbertine Demery Sykes La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    See State v. Cavalier, 96-3052, 97-0103, p. 3 (La.10/31/97)
  • State v. Sykes 857 So. 2d 638 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    See State v. Cavalier, 96-3052, 97-0103, p. 3 (La.10/31/97)
  • State v. Taves 846 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
  • State v. Bradford 846 So. 2d 880 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    State v. Metoyer, 97-2266 (La.App.
  • State v. Stokes 841 So. 2d 758 La. 2003
  • State v. Watts 835 So. 2d 441 La. 2003
    See State v. Cavalier, 96-3052, 97-0103, p. 3 (La.10/31/97)
  • State v. Weber 834 So. 2d 540 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
  • State v. Jason 820 So. 2d 1286 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
  • State v. Brisban 809 So. 2d 923 La. 2002
    State v. Cavalier, 96-3052, p. 3 (La.10/31/97)
  • State v. Womack-Grey 809 So. 2d 1166 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
  • State v. Laird 800 So. 2d 427 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
  • State v. Andy 793 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    State v. *490 Lanham, 31,791 (La.App.2d Cir.03/31/99), , writ denied, 99-1320 (La.01/14/00), .
  • State v. Manson 791 So. 2d 749 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
    -997 (La.1992), the Louisiana Supreme Court extensively discussed the application of the hearsay exception for statements against interest: Admission of statements against interest, as a traditional exception to the hearsay rule, is based on necessity and trustworthiness.
  • State v. Harris 783 So. 2d 509 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    In support of his argument
  • State v. Haynes 762 So. 2d 1247 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    the supreme court discussed Louisiana's rule as to statements against penal interest.
  • State v. Bright 776 So. 2d 1134 La. 2000