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. Van Winkle, 658 So. 2d 198.

94 citing documents.

  • State v. White 22 So. 3d 197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947, p. 5 (La.6/30/95), -202 .
  • State v. Thompson 10 So. 3d 851 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947, p. 5 (La.6/30/95), -202 .
  • State v. Lawrence 5 So. 3d 896 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947, p. 5 (La.6/30/95), -202 .
  • State v. Sartain 2 So. 3d 1132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    In State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947, pp. 5-6 (La.6/30/95), -202 , the Court discussed a defendant’s right to present a defense: A criminal defendant has the constitutional right to present a defense.
  • State v. Holmes 5 So. 3d 42 La. 2008
    See State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947 (La.6/30/95), ; (La.
  • State v. Hebert 986 So. 2d 256 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
  • State v. Blank 955 So. 2d 90 La. 2007
    2142 , 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (1986); State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947 (La.6/30/95), .
  • State v. Lathan 953 So. 2d 890 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973); State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947 (La.6/30/95), ; (La.
  • State v. Bell 947 So. 2d 774 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
  • State v. Stukes 944 So. 2d 679 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    In State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947, pp. 5-6 (La.6/30/95), -202 , the Court discussed a defendant’s right to present a defense: A criminal defendant has the constitutional right to present a defense.
  • State v. Anders 941 So. 2d 93 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947, p. 5 (La.6/30/95), .
  • State of Louisiana v. Calvin Joseph Celestine, II La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • State of Louisiana v. Quantell Derell Anders La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • State v. Johnson 940 So. 2d 711 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967); State v. Van Winkle, XXXX-XXXX (La.6/30/95), ; State v. Tauzin, 38,436 (La.App.
  • State v. Cuccia 933 So. 2d 134 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
    State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947, p. 5 (La.6/30/95), -202 .
  • State v. Juniors 915 So. 2d 291 La. 2005
    State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947 (La.6/30/95)
  • State v. Marsalis 902 So. 2d 1081 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947 (La.6/30/95)
  • State v. Higgins 898 So. 2d 1219 La. 2005
    See State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947, p. 7 (La.6/30/95), (finding reversible error to exclude hearsay evidence suggesting that defendant's roommate killed victim); ("While the statement does not fit into any of the recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule, it should have, nevertheless, been admitted into evidence due
  • State v. Pitre 901 So. 2d 428 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    4th Cir.9/27/00), , 854 and State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947 (La.6/30/95), , both discussing evidence of mental disease or-defect offered to challenge the free and voluntary nature of a confession.
  • State v. Divers 889 So. 2d 335 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
    1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973); *344 State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947 (La.6/30/95), .
  • State v. Landry 876 So. 2d 146 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947, p. 5 (La.6/30/95), -202 .
  • State v. Hall 851 So. 2d 330 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947, p. 5 (La.6/30/95), .
  • State v. Huckabay 809 So. 2d 1093 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947, p. 5 (La.6/30/95), -202 .
  • State v. Shaw 785 So. 2d 34 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
    State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947 (La.6/30/95), .
  • State v. McCullough 774 So. 2d 1105 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    This court set forth the following discussion of the applicable caselaw: the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: A criminal defendant has the constitutional right to present a defense.
  • State v. Whitton 770 So. 2d 844 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    Defendant cites State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947 (La.6/30/95), , in support of his argument that the trial court erred in refusing to allow him to present medical testimony in order to challenge the reliability of his confession.
  • State v. Wommack 770 So. 2d 365 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    Cf. State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947 (La.6/30/95), .
  • State v. King 760 So. 2d 540 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    824, 827 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947 (La.6/30/95), .
  • State v. Thomas 747 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973); State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947 (La.6/30/95), .
  • State v. Duncan 738 So. 2d 706 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Const. Art. 1 § 16; State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947, p. 5 (La.6/30/95), .
  • State v. Green 735 So. 2d 723 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: A criminal defendant has the constitutional right to present a defense.
  • State v. Gibbs 728 So. 2d 945 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967); State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947 (La.6/30/95), .
  • State v. Taylor 722 So. 2d 1073 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973); State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947 (La.6/30/95), .
  • State v. Cooks 720 So. 2d 637 La. 1998
    See State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947 (La.6/30/95), ; (on rehearing).
  • State v. Shanks 715 So. 2d 157 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    See also State v. Van Winkle, *164 94-0947 (La.6/30/95), (reversible error to exclude hearsay evidence suggesting that defendant's roommate killed victim).
  • State v. Winfrey 703 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
  • State v. Van Winkle 701 So. 2d 1076 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
    State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947 (La.6/30/95), .
  • State v. Brown 702 So. 2d 744 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    As the Supreme Court stated in State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947 (La.06/30/95), , 201-202: A criminal defendant has the constitutional right to present a defense.
  • State v. Jarreau 692 So. 2d 33 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    See State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947, p. 5 (La.6/30/95), .
  • State v. Smith 687 So. 2d 529 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    State v. Gremillion, 542 So.2d at 1078 ; see also State v. Van Winkle, 94-947, p. 5 (La.6/30/95); ("Evidentiary rules may not supersede the fundamental right to present a defense."); (La.App.
  • State v. Lavalais 685 So. 2d 1048 La. 1996
    See also State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947 (La.6/30/95), (reversible *1055 error to exclude hearsay evidence suggesting that defendant's roommate killed victim).
  • State v. Thames 681 So. 2d 480 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    State v. Van Winkle, 94-0947, p. 6 (La.6/30/95), .
  • State v. Hattaway 674 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
  • State v. Bolden 680 So. 2d 6 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    6/30/95); , in which the court stated that evidentiary rules may not supersede the fundamental right to present a defense.