Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Jones, 590 So. 2d 78.

21 citing documents.

State v. Tillery 167 So. 3d 15 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2014
3rd Cir. 1991), writ denied, (La.App.
State v. Lac 982 So. 2d 277 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
3 Cir.), writ denied, (alteration in original)), this court stated that the "[s]ources of information from which a sentencing court may draw are extensive and the traditional rules of evidence are not bars to consideration of otherwise relevant information."
State of Louisiana v. L.A.C. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
3 Cir.), writ denied, (alteration in original)), this court stated that the “[s]ources of information from which a sentencing court may draw are extensive and the traditional rules of evidence are not bars to consideration of otherwise relevant information.” Therefore, we find no error in the trial court’s consideration of the
State of Louisiana v. Ezekiel Maurice McGinnis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
3rd Cir.), writ denied, stated: Evidence is admissible at trial if properly identified.
State v. McGinnis 981 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
3rd Cir.), writ denied, (La.
State v. L.A.C. 982 So. 2d 277 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
3 Cir.), writ denied, (alteration in original)), this court stated that the “[s]ources of information from which a sentencing court may draw are extensive and the traditional rules of evidence are not bars to consideration of otherwise relevant information.” Therefore, we find no error in the trial court’s consideration of the vi
State v. Reynolds 772 So. 2d 128 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
3 Cir.), writ denied, (La.
State v. Stelly 693 So. 2d 305 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
State v. Fefie 692 So. 2d 1236 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
3 Cir.1991), writs denied at
State v. Roberts 683 So. 2d 1335 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
State v. Baker 674 So. 2d 1108 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
See, e.g., State v. Thompson, 27,543 (La.App.2d Cir. 12/6/95), , and citations therein; writ denied (1991).
State v. Thompson 665 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
3rd Cir.1991), writ denied, (collecting cases).
State v. Fenner 664 So. 2d 1315 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
4th Cir.1991), writ denied
State v. Washington 646 So. 2d 448 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
State v. Washington 646 So. 2d 448 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
State v. Brossette 634 So. 2d 1309 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
App. 3rd Cir.1991), writ denied
State v. Gamble 631 So. 2d 586 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
3rd Cir.), writ denied, stated: Evidence is admissible at trial if properly identified.
State v. Smith 625 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
3d Cir.1991), writ denied, (La.
State v. Hensley 608 So. 2d 664 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
3rd Cir.1991), writ denied, we stated: "Evidence is admissible at trial if properly identified.
State v. Deal 607 So. 2d 641 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
3 Cir.1991), writ denied this court held that disclosure was not required where the informant was only present during the transaction and merely introduced the defendant to the detective.
State v. Cook 598 So. 2d 481 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
3d Cir.1991), writ denied