Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Hollins, 15 So. 3d 69.

11 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Tyrek Randall La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2025
6/26/09), –73 (alteration in original), the supreme court discussed the meaning of accomplice: The is no statutory definition of “accomplice” in our codes or statutes.
State v. McBride 239 So. 3d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
6/26/09), , 71 ( citing State v. Tate , 01-1658, p. 4-5 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Justin Robert Sizemore La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
6/26/09), -72 (footnotes and citations omitted), the supreme court addressed convictions based on accomplice testimony, stating: 8 In Louisiana, as a general principle of law, a conviction may be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of a purported accomp
State v. Sizemore 129 So. 3d 860 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
In State v. Hollins, 08-1033, p. 4 (La.6/26/09), -72 (footnotes and citations omitted), the supreme court addressed convictions based on accomplice testimony, stating: | ¡¡In Louisiana, as a general principle of law, a conviction may be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of a purported accomplice, although the jury should be instructed to treat such testim
State of Louisiana v. Jamario Kato La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
6/26/09), stands for the principle that a jury should be instructed that an accomplice’s uncorroborated testimony should be viewed with great caution.
State v. Kato 157 So. 3d 695 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
The case Defendant cites, State v. Hollins, 08-1033 (La.6/26/09), , stands for the principle that a jury should be instructed that an accomplice’s uncorroborated testimony should be viewed with great caution.
State v. Seals 83 So. 3d 285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Hollins, 08-1033, p. 3 (La.6/26/09), .
State v. McElveen 73 So. 3d 1033 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Hollins, 08-1033, p. 3 (La.6/26/09), .
State of Louisiana v. Jonathan Edward Boyer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
6/26/09), -73, wherein the supreme court discussed special instructions to the jury regarding accomplice testimony: Under La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Boyer 56 So. 3d 1119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
The trial court noted that “there is significant evidence that the Court has seen that does corroborate the accomplice’s statement, as well as the statement of the defendant, and for those reasons found that the precautionary statement on accomplice was not appropriate.” Both the trial court and Defendant referred to State v. Hollins, 08-1033, pp. 4-5 (La.6/26/09), -73 , wherein the supreme court discussed special instructions to the jury regarding accomplice testimony: Under La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Thomas 54 So. 3d 678 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2010
State v. Hollins, 08-1033, p. 3 (La.6/26/09); .