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. Feazell, 486 So. 2d 327.

20 citing documents.

  • State Of Louisiana v. Robert Javontie Marks La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
  • State v. Carper 107 So. 3d 118 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    This court, in State v. Watson, 39,362 (La.App.2d Cir.04/20/05), , explained that some leading questions do not render such videotapes inadmissible under these statutes, (La.App.
  • In the Matter of State Ex Rel. Lw 40 So. 3d 1220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    1354 , 1369 n. 9, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004); (La.App.
  • State ex rel. L.W. 40 So. 3d 1220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    1354 , 1369 n. 9, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004); (La.App.
  • State Ex Rel. Am 994 So. 2d 1277 La. 2008
    1354, 1369 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004)("[W]e reiterate that, when the declarant appears for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause places no constraints at all on the use of his prior testimonial statements.") (citations omitted); (La.App.
  • State v. In the Interest of A.M. 994 So. 2d 1277 La. 2008
    1354, 1369 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004)(“[W]e reiterate that, when the declarant appears for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause places no constraints at all on the use of his prior testimonial statements.”) (citations omitted); (La.App.
  • State v. Borden 986 So. 2d 158 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
  • State v. Roberts 966 So. 2d 111 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    2d Cir.4/20/05), , this court explained that some leading questions do not render such video tapes inadmissible under these statutes: With regard to leading questions, (La.App.
  • State v. Kennedy 957 So. 2d 757 La. 2007
    5 Cir.1986) (defendant's right of confrontation not violated because defense counsel viewed the tape before trial and victim testified); -331 (La.App.
  • State v. Watson 900 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    With regard to leading questions, (La.App.
  • State v. Guerra 834 So. 2d 1206 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    With regard to leading questions, (La.App.
  • State v. Duke 625 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
  • State v. Isaac 544 So. 2d 531 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
  • State v. Crook 517 So. 2d 1131 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
  • State in Interest of RC 514 So. 2d 759 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    State in the interest of R.C., supra; (La.App.
  • State v. Schenck 513 So. 2d 1159 La. 1987
    Similar fact situations were presented in all of the other reported appellate court cases which discuss the crime of sexual battery: (La.App.
  • State v. Guidroz 498 So. 2d 108 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
  • Distinguished State v. In the Interest of R.C. 494 So. 2d 1350 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • Distinguished State v. RC 494 So. 2d 1350 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • State v. Feazell 491 So. 2d 20 La. 1986
    Prior report: La.App., .