Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Diggs, 657 So. 2d 1104.

15 citing documents.

State v. Alridge 249 So. 3d 260 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
App. 4 Cir. 6/29/95), (finding unavailability of witness testimony required a new trial because it could not be determined whether the missing testimony was substantial or inconsequential).
State v. Handy 226 So. 3d 1182 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
App. 4 Cir. 6/29/95), (finding unavailability of witness testimony required a new trial because it could not be determined whether the missing testimony was substantial or inconsequential).
State v. Jones 220 So. 3d 128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
4 Cir. 6/29/95) , (finding unavailability of witness testimony required a new trial because it could not be determined | «whether the missing testimony was substantial or inconsequential).
State v. Molere 99 So. 3d 1050 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
4 Cir. 6/29/95) , ; State v. Bright, 00-1255 (La.App.2/6/02), ; State v. Lewis, 95-0769 (La.App.
State v. Massey 51 So. 3d 808 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
4 Cir. 6/29/95) , , citing Ford, supra, (finding the unavailability of an officer’s complete testimony necessitated a new trial because it could not be determined whether the IflHiissing testimony was substantial or inconsequential).
State v. Stukes 19 So. 3d 1233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
4 Cir. 6/29/95) , , citing Ford, supra, (finding the unavailability of an officer’s complete testimony necessitated a new trial because it could not be determined whether the missing testimony was substantial or inconsequential).
State v. Hughes 951 So. 2d 1157 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
4 Cir. 6/29/05) , (unavailability of an officer's complete testimony necessitated a new trial because it could not be determined whether the missing testimony was substantial or inconsequential, or whether any objections or motions had been made during the officer's testimony); see also State v. Bright, 00-1255 (La.App.
State v. Scott 913 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
4 Cir. 6/29/95) , , citing Ford, supra, (finding the unavailability of an officer's complete testimony necessitated a new trial because it could not be determined whether the missing testimony was substantial or inconsequential).
State v. Young 839 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
4 Cir. 6/29/95) , (citing Ford, supra, and finding the unavailability of an officer's complete testimony necessitated a new trial since it could not be determined whether the missing testimony was substantial or inconsequential).
State v. Weber 834 So. 2d 540 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
4 Cir. 6/29/95) , , the unavailability of an officer’s complete testimony was found to necessitate a new trial.
State v. Simpson 829 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
4 Cir. 6/29/95) , (citing Ford, supra, and finding the unavailability of an officer's complete testimony necessitated a new trial because it could not be determined whether the missing testimony was substantial or inconsequential).
State v. Harry 823 So. 2d 987 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
*992 4 Cir. 6/29/95), (citing Ford, supra, and finding the unavailability of an officer's complete testimony necessitated a new trial since it could not be determined whether the missing testimony was substantial or inconsequential).
State v. Bright 809 So. 2d 1112 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
4 Cir. 6/29/95) , , this court found the unavailability of an officer's complete testimony necessitated a new trial.
State v. Cooley 747 So. 2d 1182 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
4 Cir. 6/29/95) , , in support of his argument that the lack of the preliminary and suppression *1188 hearing transcript prevents a complete review of his convictions and sentences.
State v. Ruffin 738 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
4 Cir. 6/29/95) , this court did grant a defendant a new trial.