Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Monroe, 17 So. 2d 331.

23 citing documents.

State v. Holmes 5 So. 3d 42 La. 2008
1984) ( , (1944)) (the State "does not and cannot know what evidence the defense will use until it is presented at trial," it is for this reason that the prosecution has been given the right of rebuttal).
State v. Shipp 712 So. 2d 230 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
State v. Touchet 642 So. 2d 1213 La. 1994
More than a half century ago, , (1944) that "[i]n a criminal prosecution the state does not and can not know what the defense to the charge will be until it is presented on the trial of the case ...,"
State v. Bass 595 So. 2d 820 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
State v. Romero 574 So. 2d 330 La. 1990
State v. Deboue 552 So. 2d 355 La. 1989
State v. Thibodeaux 473 So. 2d 135 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
that: “ , (1944), we noted ‘rebutting evidence is that which is offered to explain, repel, counteract, or disprove facts given in evidence by the adverse party.’ (Emphasis ours.)
State v. Williams 445 So. 2d 1171 La. 1984
State v. Dayton 445 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
(citations omitted) , (1944), we noted: "Rebutting evidence is that which is offered to explain, repel, counteract, or disprove facts given in evidence by the adverse party."
State v. Young 426 So. 2d 370 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
State v. Perry 408 So. 2d 1358 La. 1982
State v. Gatlin 396 So. 2d 1294 La. 1981
(1944), we noted: `Rebutting evidence is that which is offered to explain, *1297 repel, counteract, or disprove facts given in evidence by the adverse party.'
State v. Constantine 364 So. 2d 1011 La. 1978
(1944), this court defined the permissible scope of rebuttal evidence: "Rebutting evidence is that which is offered to explain, repel, counteract or disprove facts given in evidence by the adverse party."
State v. Western 355 So. 2d 1314 La. 1978
State v. Turner, La., (1976); , (1944).
State v. Alexander 351 So. 2d 505 La. 1977
" , (1944), we noted: `Rebutting evidence is that which is offered to explain, repel, counteract, or disprove facts given in evidence by the adverse party.'
State v. Hatter 350 So. 2d 149 La. 1977
State v. Hatter, supra ; , (1844).
State v. Tassin 343 So. 2d 681 La. 1977
471 , (1971), dealing with the admissibility of evidence tending to show that defendant had previously used drugs after a defendant denied prior use, this Court stated: " , , we stated: 'Rebutting evidence is that which is offered to explain, repel, counteract or disprove facts given in evidence by the adverse party.
State v. Hatter 338 So. 2d 100 La. 1976
(1844), we held that "rebuttal evidence" was that evidence offered to explain, repel, contradict or disprove facts given in evidence by the adverse party.
State v. Turner 337 So. 2d 455 La. 1976
(1944), we noted: "Rebutting evidence is that which is offered to explain, repel, counteract, or disprove facts given in evidence by the adverse party."
State v. Banks 307 So. 2d 594 La. 1975
State v. Campbell 270 So. 2d 506 La. 1972
(1944), this Court defined rebutting evidence as follows: “Rebutting evidence is that which is offered to explain, repel, counteract or disprove facts given in evidence by the adverse party.” (Italics ours).
State v. Poe 38 So. 2d 359 La. 1948
nce adduced by the defend *631 ant and Article 379 provides that, since the purpose of rebuttal evidence is to disprove, the district attorney should offer all of the testimony upon which he relies for conviction prior to the introduction of any evidence by the defendant “but the application of this rule must rest in the sound discretion of the trial judge.” , , we had occasion to define and apply the rules relative to the admission of evidence in rebuttal.
State v. Kaufman 30 So. 2d 337 La. 1947
- This article féads as-> follows: “The prosecution has ¡the right-to rebut the evidence- adduced by 'the de- > *540 fendant, but the defendant is without right to rebut the prosecution’s rebuttal.” , , this court in discussing what is meant by “rebutting evidence”, had this to say: “Rebutting evidence is that which is offered to explain, repel, counteract or disprove facts given in evidence by the adverse party.