Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite In re Tobler, 108 So. 3d 1159.

21 citing documents.

State Of Louisiana v. BJ McElveen La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
10/ 26/ 12), - 62 ( per curiam), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a DNA profile created prior to the defendant becoming a suspect in the case was non -testimonial in nature.
State Of Louisiana v. Larry West La. 2024
State of Louisiana Versus Larry Dillon, Jr. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
10/26/12), -62, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: No error under the Confrontation Clause occurs when a DNA expert testifies that in his or her opinion the DNA profile developed from a sample taken from defendant matches the DNA profile developed by other, non-testifying technicians from biologi
State Of Louisiana v. B.J. McElveen La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2022
10/ 26/ 12), - 62 ( per curiam).
State of Louisiana v. Dwight Washington La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
10/26/12), (per curiam).
State ex rel. M.K 261 So. 3d 955 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
10/26/12), , which held that a DNA profile created prior to the defendant becoming a suspect in the case is non-testimonial in nature.
State of Louisiana v. Hank Allen Moran AKA - Hank Moran La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
State v. Moran 218 So. 3d 749 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Jones 220 So. 3d 128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
10/26/12), -62 (finding no Confrontation Clause violation if “the tests on the victim’s samples were conducted before the defendant was identified as the | ^assailant or targeted as a suspect.”).
State v. Scott 197 So. 3d 298 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
As the Louisiana Supreme Court stated in State v. Bolden, 11-2435, p. 2 *304 (La.10/26/12), , 1161, review of the sufficiency of the evidence under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct.
State of Louisiana v. Vernon Mullins 188 So. 3d 164 La. 2016
Finally, this Court has stated that the Williams holding is no more broad “than the particular circumstances that led to the convergence of the votes of five Justices to uphold the judgment of the Illinois appellate courts ...” State v. Bolden, 2011-2435 (La.10/26/12), .
State v. Bernard 171 So. 3d 1063 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
A review of the record for sufficiency of the evidence “encompasses all of the evidence introduced at trial, inadmissible as well as admissible.” State v. 1 2Bolden, 11-2435, p. 2 (La.10/26/12), , 1161.
State v. Mark 146 So. 3d 886 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
IsaThe Louisiana Supreme Court interpreted and applied Williams , in State v. Bolden, 11-2435, pp. 3-4 (La.10/26/12), -62 .
State of Louisiana v. Lawrence Lafleur La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
10/26/12), -62, the Louisiana Supreme Court addressed the admissibility of such testimony, stating: No error under the Confrontation Clause occurs when a DNA expert testifies that in his or her opinion the DNA profile developed from a sample taken from defendant matches the DNA profile developed by
State v. Lafleur 134 So. 3d 167 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
In State v. Bolden, 11-2435, pp. 4-5 (La.10/26/12), -62 , the Louisiana Supreme Court addressed the admissibility of such testimony, stating: No error under the Confrontation Clause occurs when a DNA expert testifies that in his or her opinion the DNA profile developed from a sample taken from defendant matches the DNA profile developed by other, non-testifying te
State v. Webb 133 So. 3d 258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See State v. Bolden, 2011-2485 (La.10/26/12), .
State in the Interest of N. F. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State ex rel. N.F. 124 So. 3d 1262 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Additionally, a review of the record for sufficiency of the evidence “encompasses all of the evidence introduced at trial, inadmissible as well as admissible.” State v. Bolden, 11-2435, p. 2 (La.10/26/12), .
State v. Taylor 118 So. 3d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
The Louisiana Supreme Court interpreted and applied Williams, in State v. Bolden, 11-2435, pp. 3-4 (La.10/26/12), -1162 .
State v. Welch 115 So. 3d 490 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See State v. Bolden, 2011-2435 (La.10/26/12), , (per curiam).
State v. Grimes 109 So. 3d 1007 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See also State v. Bolden, 2011-2435 (La.10/26/12), , (retroactively applying a June 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the granting of a writ of certiorari by the State of Louisiana directed to an appellate court that had reversed the defendant’s convictions and sentences on a Sixth Amendment issue in October 2011).