Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Williams, 35 So. 505.

26 citing documents.

State v. Gerald 199 So. 2d 536 La. 1967
State v. Johnson 82 So. 2d 24 La. 1955
State v. Green 17 So. 2d 620 La. 1944
State v. Graffam 13 So. 2d 249 La. 1943
State v. Gardner 5 So. 2d 132 La. 1941
State v. Robertson 200 So. 320 La. 1941
322 .” , at page 183 of the opinion, 35 So.
State v. Jacobs 196 So. 347 La. 1940
Articles 445 and 446, Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure; , 35 So.
State v. Brown 171 So. 433 La. 1936
In State v. Ward, supra, , 35 So.
State v. Warlick 155 So. 460 La. 1934
State v. Calloway 140 So. 2 La. 1932
State v. Ashworth 120 So. 865 La. 1929
State v. Ward 118 So. 26 La. 1928
179, , is cited, and the following excerpt from the opinion in that ease is quoted: “Whilst, as a' general rule, a distinct crime, unconnected with the one charged in the indictment, cannot be given in evidence, exceptions to that rule arise -when it becomes necessary to rebut the possible -inference of accident, or to pro
State v. Norphlis 116 So. 374 La. 1928
State v. Brown 111 So. 617 La. 1927
The ruling of the court in sustaining the objection is manifestly correct, , 35 So.
State v. McCall 110 So. 723 La. 1926
State v. Cole 109 So. 505 La. 1926
State v. Ard 107 So. 617 La. 1926
When this situation is presented the rule is that: “Evidence of a similar offense, committed in a different parish, is inadmissible, when subsequent in date, and not shown to be connected with the prior offense.” , 111 La.
State v. Carricut 102 So. 98 La. 1924
State v. Stewart 102 So. 584 La. 1924
State v. Smith 101 So. 209 La. 1924
On the other hand, , 35 South.
State v. Werner 80 So. 596 La. 1918
State v. Higginbotham 70 So. 328 La. 1915
The ■ witness answered: “Yes, sir; they were mistaken.” , 35 South.
State v. Oden 58 So. 351 La. 1912
Marr’s Criminal Jurisprudence, § 406; , 35 South.
State v. Morgan 55 So. 747 La. 1911
State v. Blount 50 So. 12 La. 1909
Romano v. Seidel Furniture Mfg. Co. 38 So. 409 La. 1905
[own] behalf.” We quote from plaintiff’s brief, which contains the further statement: “We took a bill of exceptions to the ruling of the court, but we think, after reflection, that the judge ruled properly, and that the record discloses ample reason for his action.” We are not called upon to revise the ruling of the court below, but as a , 35 South.