Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Magee, 103 So. 3d 285.

94 citing documents.

State v. Chambers 212 So. 3d 643 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Hust 214 So. 3d 174 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
State v. Mickelson 210 So. 3d 893 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
9/28/12), ; State v. Sepulvado, 93-2692 (La.
State v. Wilson 208 So. 3d 999 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
State v. Ross 195 So. 3d 1210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
See State v. Magee, 11-0574, p. 49, n. 37 (La.9/28/12), (“Although the district court did not specifically rule on the admissibility of the statements under La.
State of Louisiana v. Debbie E. Adams AKA Debbie Adams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
State v. Wells 191 So. 3d 1127 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
See State v. Norah, 12-1194, p. 31 (La.App/4 Cir. 12/11/13), (citing State v. Magee, 11-0574, pp. 41-42 (La.9/28/12), -16 ).
State of Louisiana v. Robert Glen Coleman 188 So. 3d 174 La. 2016
9/28/12), State v. Lanieux, 09-675 (La.
State v. Rumley 183 So. 3d 640 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Const, art. I, § 16; State v. Magee, 2011-0574, p. 10 (La.9/28/12), ; State v. Lee, 2005-2098, p. 32 (La.1/16/08), .
State v. Griffin 176 So. 3d 561 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
14 The State argues that Mr. Griffin failed to proffer Keith Knatt’s allegedly excluded testimony, “leaving no basis for appellate review.” In support, the State cites State v. Magee, 11-0574 (La.9/28/12), .
State v. Cox 174 So. 3d 131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Wilson 171 So. 3d 356 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Magee, 11-0574 (La.9/28/12), , cert.
State v. Neely 171 So. 3d 1022 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Magee, 11-0574, p. 52 (La.9/28/12), .
State v. Mack 162 So. 3d 1284 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Introduction of Photographs The Louisiana Supreme Court set forth the following applicable law in State v. Magee, 2011-0574, pp. 54-55 (La.9/28/12), , to determine the admissibility of photographs: “Photographs are generally admissible if they illustrate any fact, shed any light upon an issue in the case, or are relevant to describe the person, thing, or place depicted.” State v. Sepulvado, 93-2692, p. 7 (La.4/8/96), .
State v. Farrier 162 So. 3d 1233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
art. 103 A(2) (error may not be predicated on a ruling excluding evidence unless “the substance of the evidence was made known to the court by counsel”); State v. Magee, 11-0574, pp. 56-64 (La.9/28/12), -28 ; State v. Green, 10-0791, p. 23 (La.App.
State v. Thompson 163 So. 3d 139 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
State v. Magee, 11-0574 (La.9/28/12), , citing State v. Clark, 02-1463 (La.6/27/03), , and State v. Frank, 99-0553 (La.1/17/01), , as revised (Apr.
State of Louisiana v. David J. Koederitz 166 So. 3d 981 La. 2015
State v. Butler 162 So. 3d 455 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
4 Cir. 10/8/14) , -63 (quoting State v. Magee, 11-0574, pp. 6-7 (La.9/28/12), ).
State v. Armstead 159 So. 3d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See also State v. Magee, 11-0574, p. 45 (La.9/28/12); .
State v. Rouser 158 So. 3d 860 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
"This can be effected by proffer, either in the form of a complete record of the excluded testimony or a statement describing what the party expects to establish by the excluded evidence.” State v. Magee, 11-574, p. 61 (La.9/28/12), , cert.
State v. Frith 151 So. 3d 946 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See State v. Magee, 2011-0574, p. 63 (La.9/28/12), -328 , ( (La.App.
State v. Pernell 151 So. 3d 940 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See State v. Magee, 11-0574, pp. 60-61 (La.9/28/12); -327 .
State v. Roe 151 So. 3d 838 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
In State v. Magee, 11-0574, pp. 6-7 (La.9/28/12), , the Court succinctly set forth the two tests employed to determine whether a defendant’s right against double jeopardy has been violated: When the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, in assessing whether there are two offenses or only one, the Supreme Court uses
State of Louisiana v. Eric Dale Mickelson La. 2014
State v. Allen 141 So. 3d 877 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
The admission of ‘gruesome’ photographs is not reversible error unless it is clear that their probative value is substantially outweighed by their prejudicial effect.” State v. Magee, 11-0574, p. 54-55 (La.9/28/12), (internal citations omitted.).
State v. Cope 137 So. 3d 151 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
Const, art. I, § 16; State v. Magee, 11-0574 (La.9/28/12), , cert, denied, — U.S.—, 134 S.Ct.
State v. Marlbrough 138 So. 3d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Magee, 11-574 (La.9/28/12), , cert.
State in the Intrest C. V. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Kelly v. Smith 134 So. 3d 644 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Magee, 2011-0574, pp. 60-61 (La.9/28/12), .
State v. Wilson 138 So. 3d 661 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See State v. Magee, 11-0574, p. 49, n. 37 (La.9/28/12), (“Although the district court did not specifically rule on the admissibility of the statements under La.
State of Louisiana v. Brian Segura La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Segura 127 So. 3d 1034 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
*1039 State v. Magee, 11-574, pp. 10-11 (La.9/28/12), , cert.
State v. Norah 131 So. 3d 172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See State v. Magee, 11-0574, p. 41-42 (La.9/28/12), -316 ().
State v. Free 127 So. 3d 956 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
570 , 139 L.Ed.2d 410 (1997); State v. Magee, 2011-0574 (La.9/28/12), , cert, denied, 12-9070, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct.
State v. Walker 128 So. 3d 581 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Magee, 2011-0574 (La.9/28/12), .
State v. Wise 128 So. 3d 1220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Magee, 11-0574 (La.9/28/12), .
State v. Snyder 128 So. 3d 370 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
“This can be effected by proffer, either in the form of a complete record of the excluded testimony or a statement describing what the party expects to establish by the excluded evidence.” State v. Magee, 11-0574 (La.9/28/12), .
State v. Vargas-Alcerreca 126 So. 3d 569 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See State v. Magee, 2011-0574, p. 49, n. 37 (La.9/28/12), n. 37 .
State v. Hamdalla 126 So. 3d 619 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See also State v. Magee, 11-0574, p. 45 (La.9/28/12), .
State v. Hankton 122 So. 3d 1028 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See State v. Magee, 11-0574, p. 63 (La.9/28/12), -328 , (La.App.
State v. Adams 119 So. 3d 46 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
“This can be effected by proffer, either in the form of a complete record of the excluded testimony or a statement describing what the party expects to establish by the excluded evidence.” State v. Magee, 11-0574 (La.9/28/12), .
State v. Williams 115 So. 3d 600 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Meredith 155 So. 3d 555 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See State v. Magee, 11-0574, pp. 60-61 (La.9/28/12), .
State v. Carter 106 So. 3d 699 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
art. 921 (“A judgment or ruling shall not be reversed by an appellate court because of any error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights of the accused.”) See also State v. Magee, 11-0574, p. 61 (La.9/28/12), .