DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Johnson, 3 So. 2d 556.

27 citing documents.

  • State v. Kelly 362 So. 2d 1071 La. 1978
  • State v. Hollingsworth 337 So. 2d 461 La. 1976
  • State v. Mehan 264 So. 2d 581 La. 1972
    (1941), this Court observed that: “Stated as a general rule, the proposition is that photographs are admissible in *615 evidence when they are shown to have been accurately taken, to be a correct representation of the subject in controversy, and where they tend to illustrate any material fact in the case
  • State v. Maiden 246 So. 2d 810 La. 1971
  • State v. Raymond 245 So. 2d 335 La. 1971
  • State v. Lacoste 237 So. 2d 871 La. 1970
  • State v. Washington 236 So. 2d 23 La. 1970
  • State v. Washington 236 So. 2d 23 La. 1970
  • State v. Benjamin 222 So. 2d 853 La. 1969
    Albeit, , , that, where the photographs are admissible, the fact that they are so gruesome that they tend to prejudice the jury is not a valid reason for rejecting them in evidence."
  • State v. Benjamin 222 So. 2d 853 La. 1969
    Albeit, , , that, where the photographs are admissible, the fact that they are so gruesome that they tend to prejudice the jury is not a valid reason for rejecting them in evidence.” See also, State v. Stahl, 236 La.
  • State v. Giles 218 So. 2d 585 La. 1969
  • State v. Alexander 211 So. 2d 650 La. 1968
  • State v. Morris 157 So. 2d 728 La. 1963
  • State v. Morris 157 So. 2d 728 La. 1963
  • State v. Fulghum 138 So. 2d 569 La. 1962
  • State v. Collins 138 So. 2d 546 La. 1962
    686, pp. 654-655, and, among others, , .
  • State v. Eubanks 124 So. 2d 543 La. 1960
    more hampered would be the prosecution of those who had contributed the details of its horror.” ,.
  • State v. Miller 111 So. 2d 108 La. 1959
    1 559, we properly reviewed as follows, the rules with respect to the admission of photographs in evidence : “The principle of admitting this kind of evidence (photographs) is but a corollary to that permitting the introduction of the physical object itself.
  • State v. Stahl 107 So. 2d 670 La. 1958
  • State v. Goins 94 So. 2d 244 La. 1957
  • State v. Clark 93 So. 2d 13 La. 1957
    77 ; , ; State v. Hutton, 198 La.
  • State v. Jones 88 So. 2d 655 La. 1956
    640 ; , ; State v. Smith, 212 La.
  • State v. Palmer 80 So. 2d 374 La. 1955
    In the case of State *720 v. Johnson, supra, we said [ , ]: “The admission of photographs and the use to be made of them on the trial must necessarily rest largely within the discretion of the trial judge, who can determine whether they serve a proper purpose in the jury’s enlightenment.
  • State v. McMullan 66 So. 2d 574 La. 1953
    and State v. Solomon, 222 La.
  • State v. Solomon 62 So. 2d 481 La. 1952
  • State v. Ross 47 So. 2d 559 La. 1950
  • State v. Morgan 30 So. 2d 434 La. 1947
    The law on the subject of the admissibility of photographs in evidence in a criminal prosecution is stated in State v. Johnson, 1941, , 204 , 205 , , 559 , — thus: "Where they are otherwise properly admitted, it is not a valid objection to the admissibility of photographs that they tend to prejudice the jury.