Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Vale, 666 So. 2d 1070.

58 citing documents.

Keith Ezidore Versus Timothy Hooper, Warden La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2025
State Ex Rel. Darrell J. Robinson v. Darrel Vannoy, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Angola, Louisiana La. 2024
1/26/96), 8 8 The cases cited by the majority for its new rule, (La.
State Ex Rel. Darrell J. Robinson v. Darrel Vannoy, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Angola, Louisiana La. 2024
State of Louisiana Versus Press Shorter, III La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
State v. Prince 211 So. 3d 481 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Daniel Brandon Prince -Aka- Daniel B. Prince La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
The supreme court has explained: This Court has held on numerous occasions a witness’s “hope or knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.” -22 (La.1980); see also State v. Vale, 95-1230, p. 4 (La.1/26/96)
State of Louisiana v. Robert Glen Coleman 188 So. 3d 174 La. 2016
See State v. Vale, 95-1230 (La 1/26/96), State v. Rankin, 465 So.
State v. Neely 171 So. 3d 1022 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
As stated in State v. Vale, 95-0577, 95-1230, p. 4 (La.1/26/96), , 1072: This court granted certiorari because the trial court’s ruling [prohibiting the defense from cross-examining the witness about a pending charge], affirmed by the court of ^appeal, conflicted with numerous decisions by this court that to the extent exposure of a witness’s motivation is a proper and important fu
State of Louisiana v. Warren Ray Gautreaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
1/26/96), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: [T]o the extent exposure of a witness’s motivation is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination, a witness’s “hope or knowledge that he will receive leniency from the stat
State v. Gautreaux 153 So. 3d 1232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
In State v. Vale, 95-1230, p. 4 (La.1/26/96), , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: [T]o the extent exposure of a witness’s motivation is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination, a witness’s “hope or knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interes
State of Louisiana v. Quint Mire La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Moreover, to the extent exposure of a witness‟s motivation is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination, a witness‟s “hope of knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.” (collecting cases); State v. Vale, 95–577, p. 4 (La.1/26/96)
State v. Mire 149 So. 3d 981 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Moreover, to-the extent exposure of a witness’s motivation is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination, a witness’s “hope of knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.” (collecting cases); State v. Vale, 95-577, p. 4 (La.1/26/96), .
State v. Hatfield 155 So. 3d 572 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
“It is well-settled that ‘[a] witness’s bias or interest may arise from arrests or pending criminal charges, or the prospect of prosecution, even when he has made no agreements with the state regarding his conduct.’ ” State v. Burbank, 2002-1407, p. 2 (La.4/23/04), (quoting State v. Vale, 95-1230, p. 4 (La.1/26/96), ).
State v. Blueford 137 So. 3d 54 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
or knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish bias or interest” (-22 (La.1980)), and that “a witness’s bias or interest may arise from arrests or pending criminal charges, or the prospect of prosecution, even when he has made no agreements with the state regarding his conduct.” State v. Vale, 95-1280 p. 4 (La.1/26/96), .
State v. Quinn 123 So. 3d 320 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
As stated in State v. Vale, 95-1230, 95-0577, p. 4 (La.1/26/96), , 1072: This court granted certiorari because the trial court’s ruling, affirmed by the court of appeal, conflicted with numerous decisions by this court that to the extent exposure of a witness’s motivation is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination, a witness’s “h
State v. Mills 120 So. 3d 802 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
4 As stated in State v. Vale, 95-1230, 95-577, p. 4 (La.1/26/96), , 1072: This court granted certiorari because the trial court’s ruling [prohibiting the defense from cross-examining the witness about a pending charge], affirmed by the court of appeal, conflicted with numerous decisions by this court that to the extent exposure of a witness’s motivation is a proper and important fun
State of Louisiana v. Sean Bernard Newton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
exposure of a witness‘s motivation is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination, a witness‘s ―hope of knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.‖ (collecting cases); State v. Vale, 95-577, p. 4 (La.1/26/96)
State of Louisiana v. Nina Lambert Newton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
exposure of a witness‘s motivation is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination, a witness‘s ―hope of knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.‖ (collecting cases); State v. Vale, 95-577, p. 4 (La.1/26/96)
State v. Newton 129 So. 3d 25 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Moreover, to the extent exposure of a witness’s motivation is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination, a witness’s “hope of knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.” (collecting cases); State v. Vale, 95-577, p. 4 (La.1/26/96), .
State v. Newton 129 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Moreover, to the extent exposure of a witness’s motivation is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination, a witness’s “hope of knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.” (collecting cases); State v. Vale, 95-577, p. 4 (La.1/26/96), .
State v. Garcia 108 So. 3d 1 La. 2012
This Court has held on numerous occasions a witness’s “hope or knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.” -22 (La.1980); see also State v. Vale, 95-1230, p. 4 (La.1/26/96), .
State v. Hugle 104 So. 3d 598 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
The Louisiana Supreme Court has recognized that “ ‘[a] witness’s bias or interest may arise from arrests or pending criminal charges, or the prospect of prosecution, even when he has made no agreements with the state regarding his conduct.’ ” State v. Burbank, 02-1407, p. 2 (La.4/23/04), , quoting State v. Vale, 95-1230, p. 4 (La.1/26/96), .
State v. Joyner 107 So. 3d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Vale, 95-1230, p. 4 (La.1/26/96), .
State v. Paul 90 So. 3d 1191 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Nevertheless, in support of his argument, the defendant cites State v. Vale, 95-1230 (La.1/26/96), , for the proposition that the possibility that the State may have some leverage over a witness due to that witness’s pending criminal charges is recognized as a valid area of cross-examination.
State v. Simmons 85 So. 3d 743 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
2 As stated in State v. Vale, 95-1230, 95-0577, p. 4 (La.1/26/96), , 1072: This court granted certiorari because the trial court’s ruling [prohibiting the defense from cross-examining the witness about a pending charge], affirmed by the court of appeal, conflicted with numerous decisions by this court that to the extent exposure of a witness’s motivation is a proper and important fun
State v. Johnson 91 So. 3d 365 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
416 , 154 L.Ed.2d 297 (2002) (quoting State v. Vale, 95-1230, 95-0577 (La.1/26/96), ).
State of Louisiana v. Tracy Wayne Bowie La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
1/26/96), State v. Davis, 00-2685 (La.App.
State v. Bowie 101 So. 3d 46 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
See, e.g., State v. Vale, 95-1230 (La.1/26/96), ; State v. Davis, 00-2685 (La.App.
State v. Pleasant 66 So. 3d 51 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
As stated in State v. Vale, 95-0577, 95-1230, p. 4 (La.1/26/96), , 1072: This court granted certiorari because the trial court’s ruling [prohibiting the defense from cross-examining the witness about a pending charge], affirmed by the court of appeal, conflict ed with numerous decisions by this court that to the extent exposure of a witness’s motivation is a proper and important fu
State v. Sparks 68 So. 3d 435 La. 2011
Moreover, to the extent exposure of a witness’s motivation is a proper *486 and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination, a witness’s “hope of knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest.” (collecting cases); State v. Vale, 95-577, p. 4 (La.1/26/96), .
State v. Wiley 68 So. 3d 583 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
416 , 154 L.Ed.2d 297 (2002), quoting State v. Vale, 95-1230, 95-0577 (La.1/26/96), .
State of Louisiana v. Jonathan Edward Boyer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
1/26/96), the Supreme Court reversed the fifth circuit’s affirmation of the trial court’s ruling and remanded for a harmless error analysis, stating: This court granted certiorari because the trial court’s ruling, affirmed by the court of appeal, conflicted with numerous decisions by this cour
State v. Boyer 56 So. 3d 1119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
However, in State v. Vale, 95-1230, p. 4 (La.1/26/96), , the Supreme Court reversed the fifth circuit’s affirmation of the trial court’s ruling and remanded for a harmless error analysis, stating: This court granted certiorari because the trial court’s ruling, affirmed by the court of appeal, conflicted with numerous decisions by this court that to the extent exposu
State ex rel. L.R. 52 So. 3d 944 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2010
*949 |7The Louisiana Supreme Court has recognized that “[a] witness’s bias or interest may arise from arrests or pending criminal charges, or the prospect of prosecution, even when he has made no agreements with the state regarding his conduct.” State v. Burbank, 2002-1407, p. 2 (La.4/23/04), (quoting State v. Vale, 95-1230, p. 4 (La.1/26/96), ).
State v. Thompson 10 So. 3d 851 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
As stated in State v. Vale, 95-0577, 95-1230, p. 4 (La.1/26/96), , 1072: This court granted certiorari because the trial court’s ruling [prohibiting the defense from cross-examining the witness about a pending charge], affirmed by the court of appeal, conflicted with numerous decisions by this court that to the extent exposure of a witness’s motivation is a proper and important fun
State v. Bradley 995 So. 2d 1230 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
State v. Burbank, XXXX-XXXX, p. 2 (La.4/23/04), , quoting State v. Vale, 95-1230, p. 4 (La.1/26/96), .
State v. Merwin 984 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
Schexnayder , 96-98 at p. 20, 685 So.2d at 369 , quoting State v. Vale, 95-1230, p. 4 (La.1/26/99), (per curiam), citing Nash, 475 So.2d at 755-56 .
State v. MICELOTTI 984 So. 2d 847 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
Schexnayder , 96-98 at p. 20, 685 So.2d at 369 , quoting State v. Vale, 95-1230, p. 4 (La.1/26/99), (per curiam), citing Nash, 475 So.2d at 755-56 .
State v. Burbank 917 So. 2d 1082 La. 2005
-822 (La.1980); see also State v. Vale, 95-1230,(La.1/26/1996), .
State v. Burbank 893 So. 2d 109 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
State of Louisiana v. Kiley M. Williams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
1/26/96), three defendants were charged together with possession of heroin with the intent to distribute as a result of a transaction that occurred in June of 1990.
State v. Williams 878 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
In State v. Vale, 95-1230 (La.1/26/96), , three defendants were charged together with possession of heroin with the intent to distribute as a result of a transaction that occurred in June of 1990.
State v. Burbank 872 So. 2d 1049 La. 2004
State v. Vale, 95-1230, p. 4 (La.1/26/96), ; (La.
State v. Royal 857 So. 2d 1167 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
State v. Vale, 95-1230 (La.1/26/96), ; State v. Schexnayder, 96-98 (La.App.
State v. Stewart 845 So. 2d 1046 La. 2003
State v. Vale, 95-1230, p. 4 (La.1/26/96), .
State v. Jones 841 So. 2d 965 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State v. Vale, 95-1230 (La.1/26/96), ; State v. Schexnayder, 96-98 (La.App.
State v. Bowie 813 So. 2d 377 La. 2002
State v. Vale, 95-1230, 95-0577, (La.1/26/96), , quoting Brady, 381 So.2d at 822 .
State v. Marcantel 815 So. 2d 50 La. 2002
State v. Vale, 95-1230 p. 4 (La.1/26/96), .
State v. Goodlow 801 So. 2d 1065 La. 2001
State v. Vale, 95-1230, p. 4 (La.1/26/96), (“A witness’s bias or interest may arise from arrests or pending criminal charges, or the prospect of prosecution, even when he has made no agreements with the state regarding his conduct.”)(-22 ); see also La.C.E.
State v. Lormand 771 So. 2d 734 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
the supreme court recently reached the same conclusion concerning the right of a defendant to question a witness’s motivation for testifying and stated that “[a] witness’s bias or interest may arise from arrests or pending criminal charges, or the prospect of prosecution, even when he has made no agreements with the state regarding his conduct.” State v. Vale, 95-577, 95-1230, p. 4 (La.1/26/96); .