DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Harper, 53 So. 3d 1263.

21 citing documents.

  • State Ex Rel. Darrell J. Robinson v. Darrel Vannoy, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Angola, Louisiana La. 2024
    11/30/10), there was no Brady violation because the State is not obligated to provide a defendant with information he already has or can obtain with reasonable diligence.
  • State v. Taylor 247 So. 3d 1192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
  • State v. Johnson 229 So. 3d 610 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
  • State v. Wells 191 So. 3d 1127 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    See State v. Harper, 10-0356, p. 11 (La.11/30/10), (citing State v. Kenner, 05-1052) p. 2 (La.12/16/05), ; State v. Hobley, 98-2460, p. 25, n. 10 (La.12/15/99), ).
  • State v. Crawford 176 So. 3d 394 La. 2015
    State v. Harper, 10-0356, p. 11 (La.11/30/10), .
  • State v. Ferguson 181 So. 3d 120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    State v. Harper, 2010-0356 (La.11/30/10), .
  • State v. Trung Le 188 So. 3d 1072 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    See, e.g., State v. Harper, 10-0356 (La.11/30/10), .
  • State v. Jenkins 172 So. 3d 27 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    Defense counsel has an “obligation to conduct its own investigation and prepare a defense for trial as the State is not obligated under Brady or its progeny to furnish defendant with information he already has or can obtain with reasonable diligence.” State v. Harper, 10-0356, p. 11 (La.11/30/10), (citing State v. Kenner, 05-1052, pp. 1-2 (La.12/16/05), -82 (per curiam)).
  • State v. Le 165 So. 3d 242 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    11/30/10), -1271 , the Supreme Court stated: [A] defendant is generally not entitled of right to the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of witnesses in the absence of extraordinary circumstances.
  • State v. Dominick 129 So. 3d 782 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    State v. Harper, 10-0356, p. 11 (La.11/30/10), (citing State v. Kenner, 05-1052, p. 2 (La.12/16/05), (citing United States v. Newman, 849 F.2d 156, 161 (5th Cir.1988))).
  • State v. Bazile 144 So. 3d 719 La. 2013
    11/30/10); , citing United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 675 , 105 S.Ct.
  • State of Louisiana v. Eldridge Tezano, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    11/30/10), -71 (alterations in original).
  • State of Louisiana v. Sean Bernard Newton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    11/30/10), -71, the supreme court discussed the Brady principle, as follows: In accordance with the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the State must disclose evidence which is favorable to the defense when ―the evidence is
  • State of Louisiana v. Nina Lambert Newton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    11/30/10), -71 (alterations in original) (second omission in original), the supreme court discussed the Brady principle, as follows: In accordance with the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the State must disclose evidence which is favorable to the
  • State v. Newton 129 So. 3d 25 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    In State v. Harper, 10-356, pp. 8-12 (La.11/30/10), -71 (alterations in original) (second omission in original), the supreme court discussed the Brady principle, as follows: In accordance with the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the State must disclose evidence which is favorable to the defense when “the evidence i
  • State v. Newton 129 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    In State v. Harper, 10-356, pp. 8-12 (La.11/30/10), -71 , the supreme court discussed the Brady principle, as follows: In accordance with the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the State must disclose evidence which is favorable to the defense when “the evidence is Immaterial either to guilt or to punishment” or impea
  • State of Louisiana v. Donald Runnels La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • State v. Runnels 101 So. 3d 1046 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    The defendant contends that her testimony caused “irrepairable injury.” “Louisiana jurisprudence has also consistently held a defendant is generally not entitled of right to the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of witnesses in the absence of extraordinary circumstances.” State v. Harper, 10-356, p. 10 (La.11/30/10), .
  • State v. Armstead 98 So. 3d 891 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    We note that, while a defendant is generally not entitled to statements by witnesses, “[t]he defendant may not be denied exculpatory statements made by a witness other than the defendant provided the statement is material and relevant to the issue of guilt or punishment.” State v. Harper, 2010-0356, p. 10 (La.11/30/10)
  • State of Louisiana v. Triston T. Lyons La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • State of Louisiana v. Kevin James Dalcourt La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    11/30/10), -71, the supreme court reaffirmed the legal standards relative to the State‘s discovery obligations, in pertinent part, as follows: 13 A defendant‘s request for such material must be specific and relevant.