Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Cousin, 710 So. 2d 1065.

57 citing documents.

Andrew McBride and Ginger McBride v. Rafael Lara Construction, LLC La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2025
State of Louisiana v. Mark L. Magee La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
See State v. Cousins, 96-2973, pp. 10-11, -71.
State of Louisiana v. Jerald Dewayne Smith La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2022
State of Louisiana Versus Melissa Gonzales La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
art. 607(D)(2); State v. Juniors, 03–2425 (La.6/29/05), State v. Cousin, 96–2973 (La.4/14/98), –72.
State of Louisiana v. Elvin Bryant Jinks, Jr. -Aka- Elvin Jinks La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
State v. Cousin, 96-2973, p. 8 (La.4/14/98)
State v. Jinks 267 So. 3d 688 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
State v. Cousin, 96-2973, p. 8 (La.4/14/98), , 1069.
State v. Coleman 259 So. 3d 1203 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
State v. Coleman 249 So. 3d 872 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
In Re: Ronald Seastrunk 236 So. 3d 509 La. 2017
4/14/98), , the underlying criminal case forming the basis for Jordan , this court had already made a determination that the statement at issue was "obviously" exculpatory, material to the issue of guilt, and "clearly" should have been produced to the defense."
State v. De Gruy 215 So. 3d 723 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
4/14/98), (“When the testimony of a witness in court is inconsistent with a prior statement by the witness, the party calling the witness may be able to use the prior statement to impeach the witness-that is, to diminish his or her credibility.”).
State v. Patterson 191 So. 3d 620 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
In State v. Cousin, 96-2973 (La.4/14/98), ,.
State v. Neely 171 So. 3d 1022 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
art. 607(D)(2), which requires the court to determine whether “the probative value of the evidence on the issue of credibility is substantially outweighed by the risks of undue consumption of time, confusion of the issues, or unfair prejudice.” See State v. Juniors, 03-2425, p. 52 (La.6/29/05), ; State v. Cousin, 96-2973, pp. 8-13 (La.4/14/98), -72 .
State v. Robinson 150 So. 3d 900 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See State v. Cousin, 96-2973 (La.4/14/98), .
State ex rel. K.M. 146 So. 3d 865 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
art. 607 D(2), he fails to acknowledge the rule’s exception pertaining to prior inconsistent statements that can be classified as non-hearsay; that is, statements that can “be used to divulge *870 the content of the prior statement for the purpose of inviting the jury to believe the content of the statement.” State v. Cousin, 96-2973 (La.4/14/98), -1070 .
State v. Cobb 144 So. 3d 17 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
art. 607D(2); State v. Cousin, 96-2973 (La.4/14/98), ; State v. Ray, 259 La.
State v. Jones 132 So. 3d 505 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
State v. Cousin, 96-2973 (La.04/14/98), ; State v. Givens, 45,246 (La.App.2nd Cir.06/09/10), ; State v. Robert, 42,036 (La.App.2nd Cir.05/09/07), ; State v. Jones, 41,299 (La.App.2d Cir.11/09/06), , writ granted in part and denied in part, 2006-3025 (La.08/31/07), and 2006-2905 (La.08/31/07), 963 So.2d
State v. Adams 119 So. 3d 46 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
art. 607(D)(2); State v. Juniors, 03-2425 (La.6/29/05), ; State v. Cousin, 96-2973 (La.4/14/98), -72 .
State v. Pham 119 So. 3d 202 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2013
State v. Cousin, 96-2973 (La.4/14/98); .
State of Louisiana v. Jason L. Walton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
4/14/98), (wherein the supreme court remarked on the limited applicability of La.Code Evid.
State v. Walton 87 So. 3d 328 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
As at trial, the defendant questions the introduction of the recorded interview in this fashion, citing State v. Cousin, 96-2973 (La.4/14/98), (wherein the supreme court remarked on the limited applicability of La.Code Evid.
State v. Rubens 83 So. 3d 30 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State Ex Rel. Dw 47 So. 3d 1048 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2010
art. 607(D); State v. Cousin, 96-2673, pp. 12-13 (La.4/14/98), .
State ex rel. D.W. 47 So. 3d 1048 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
art. 607(D); State v. Cousin, 96-2673, pp. 12-13 (La.4/14/98), .
State of Louisiana v. Courtney Paul Savoy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
State v. Savoy 11 So. 3d 1184 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
1940 , 164 L.Ed.2d 669 (2006); State v. Cousin, 96-2973 (La.4/14/98), .
State v. Rankin 965 So. 2d 946 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
Discussion The defendant contends that the trial court erred in allowing the victim's prior statements to the police to be used, not just as impeachment evidence, but as substantive evidence of the defendant's guilt, in contravention of State v. Cousin, 1996-2973 (La.4/14/98), .
State v. Frank 957 So. 2d 724 La. 2007
1997); (rev'd); State v. John Brooks, 92-3331 (La.1/17/95), (rev'd); State v. Marcus Hamilton, 92-1919 (La.9/5/96), (aff'd); State v. Derek Landry, 97-0499 (La.6/29/99), (rev'd); State v. Rogers LaCaze, 99-0584 (La.1/25/02), (aff'd); State v. Shareef Cousin, 96-2973 (La.4/14/98), (rev'd); State v. Juan Smith, 98-1417 (La.6/29/01), (aff'd); State v. Phillip Anthony, 98-0406 (La.4/11/00), (aff'd).
State v. Robert 956 So. 2d 750 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
State v. Cousin, 96-2973 (La.04/14/98), .
State v. Jones 942 So. 2d 1215 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
art. 607(D); State v. Owunta, 99-1569, p. 1 (La.5/26/00), ; State v. Cousin, 96-2673, pp. 12-13 (La.4/14/98), .
State v. Wilson 938 So. 2d 1111 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Cousin, 1996-2973 (La.4/14/98), (collecting cases); La.
State v. Juniors 915 So. 2d 291 La. 2005
art. 607(D)(2); State v. Cousin, 96-2973, pp. 8-13 (La.4/14/98), -72 .
In Re Jordan 913 So. 2d 775 La. 2005
State v. Cousin, 96-2973 p. 16 (La.4/14/98), .
State of Louisiana v. David Lee Leger La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Cousin, 96-2973, p. 8 (La.4/14/98)
State v. Leger 907 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Cousin, 96-2973, p. 8 (La.4/14/98), .
State v. Turner 904 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
See, State v. Cousin, 96-2973, pp. 9-11 (La.4/14/98), -1070 .
State v. Harris 892 So. 2d 1238 La. 2005
328 , 112 L.Ed.2d 339 (1991))(life); State v. Brooks, 92-3331 (La.1/17/95), (rev'd)(life); State v. Hall, 92-0362 (La.4/12/93), (rev'd)(manslaughter); State v. Landry, 97-0499 (La.6/29/99), (rev'd)(life); State v. Cousin, 96-2973 (La.4/14/98), (rev'd)(nolle prosequi); State v. Bright, 98-0398 (La.4/11/00), (rev'd)(life); (aff'd), rev'd post-conviction, 02-0361 (La.App.
State v. Burbank 893 So. 2d 109 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
State v. Cousin, 96-2973, p. 8 (La.4/14/98), .
State v. Smith 888 So. 2d 837 La. 2004
CALOGERO, C.J., would grant to consider relator’s claims: (1) the state introduced for impeachment purposes prior inconsistent statements made by two co-perpetrators and then improperly used them as substantive evidence of relator’s guilt, see State v. Cousin, 96-2973 (La.4/14/98), , and (2) the State improperly used its peremptory challenges to remove African-American jurors from the jury panel in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct.
State v. Collins 826 So. 2d 598 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Mr. Collins contends that the manner in which the state presented this evidence was strikingly similar to the manner in which the state presented its case in State v. Cousin, 96-2973 (La.4/14/98), .
State v. Logan 822 So. 2d 657 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
Witnesses' Prior Inconsistent Testimony In connection with his sufficiency argument, Logan asserts in a pro se argument that the state improperly used impeachment evidence in violation of State v. Cousin, 96-2973 (La.4/14/98), , and that the evidence deprived him of a fair trial.
State v. Burbank 811 So. 2d 1112 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Nevertheless, as noted in State v. Cousin, 96-2973 (La.4/14/98), , La.
State v. Robinson 811 So. 2d 967 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
This court affirmed the trial court’s ruling, based both upon State v. Cousin, 96-2973 (La.4/14/98), , which held that prior testimony could not be used as substantive evidence of guilt, and upon La.
State v. Noil 807 So. 2d 295 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Cousin, 96-2973 (La.4/14/98), ; State v. Washington, 98-69 (La.App.
State v. Jackson 800 So. 2d 854 La. 2001
I,PER CURIAM: * Louisiana has long sanctioned the use of prior inconsistent statements to impeach the general credibility of a witness, subject to the rule that such statements are admissible only for their impeachment value and not as substantive evidence, see State v. Cousin, 96-2973, p. 8 (La.4/14/98), , and subject also to the authority of a trial judge to exclude such evidence when its probative value “on the issue of credibility is substantially outweighed by the risks of undue consumption
State v. Smith 793 So. 2d 1199 La. 2001
See State v. Cousin, 96-2973, p. 8 (La.4/14/98), , 1069 The State called as its witness Trenice Dordon, the defendant's girlfriend, to establish that several days after the murders, and prompted by a news report about the crime, the defendant confided to her on two occasions that "that was cold" and "we did that."
State v. Hensley 781 So. 2d 834 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Cousin, 96-2973 (La.4/14/98), ; State v. Washington, 98-69 (La.App.
State v. Johnson 774 So. 2d 79 La. 2000
art. 607(D); State v. Owunta, 99-1569, p. 1 (La.5/26/00), ; State v. Cousin, 96-2673, pp. 12-13 (La.4/14/98), .
State v. Short 769 So. 2d 823 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Cousin, 96-2973 (La.4/14/98), .
State v. Wells 767 So. 2d 39 La. 2000
State v. Cousin, 96-2973 (La.4/14/98)
State v. Owunta 761 So. 2d 528 La. 2000
State v. Cousin, 96-2973, p. 8 (La.4/14/98), .