Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Gunter, 23 So. 2d 305.

28 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Tyrek Randall La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2025
This Court first defined an accomplice in 1945 in connection with accomplice testimony as “one who is associated with others in the commission of a crime.” So.2d 305, 311 (1945).
Distinguished State v. Willis 75 So. 3d 17 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State of Louisiana v. Jonathan Edward Boyer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
This Court first defined an accomplice in 1945 in connection with accomplice testimony as “one who is associated with others in the commission of a crime.” So.2d 305, 311 (1945).
State v. Boyer 56 So. 3d 1119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
This Court first defined an accomplice in 1945 in connection with accomplice testimony as “one who is associated with others in the commission of a crime.” , (1945).
State v. Hollins 15 So. 3d 69 La. 2009
This Court first defined an accomplice in 1945 in connection with accomplice testimony as “one who is associated with others in the commission of a crime.” , (1945).
State v. Miller 964 So. 2d 911 La. 2007
State v. Neal 796 So. 2d 649 La. 2001
State v. Bell 776 So. 2d 418 La. 2000
State v. Tyler 607 So. 2d 910 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
State v. Jenkins 508 So. 2d 191 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
State v. Harris 406 So. 2d 128 La. 1981
State v. Jones 368 So. 2d 1023 La. 1979
State v. Clark 367 So. 2d 311 La. 1979
(1945); State v. Allen, 204 La.
State v. Henson 351 So. 2d 1169 La. 1977
1973); , (1945); State v. Allen, 204 La.
State v. Luquette 275 So. 2d 396 La. 1973
769 , (1947); , (1945); State v. Washington, 207 La.
State v. Simms 248 So. 2d 293 La. 1971
“His being an accomplice affects his credibility only, of which the jury is the judge, subject to no review on appeal.” , (1945).
State v. Zant 237 So. 2d 372 La. 1970
382 , ; , ; State v. Goins, 232 La.
State v. Augustine 215 So. 2d 634 La. 1968
State v. Skinner 204 So. 2d 370 La. 1967
one of the three accused charged jointly with simple kidnapping had pleaded guilty and was a witness for the state.
State v. McAllister 150 So. 2d 557 La. 1963
15 :267 is a clear mandate to the court to have the court examine the defendant for the purpose of determining his mental condition; , .
State v. James 128 So. 2d 21 La. 1961
The trial judge sustained this objection, , , and State v. Burr, 237 La.
State v. Burr 112 So. 2d 713 La. 1959
this Court held: “In the absence of a special plea setting up as a defense defendant’s insanity or mental irresponsibility, the issue of defendant’s mental condition at the time the offense was committed did not arise in this case and the judge did not err in excluding evidence on the issue and r
State v. Yaun 110 So. 2d 573 La. 1959
State v. Goins 94 So. 2d 244 La. 1957
6 ; , ; and State v. Matassa, 222 La.
State v. Chinn 87 So. 2d 315 La. 1956
State v. David 76 So. 2d 1 La. 1954
State v. Winfield 62 So. 2d 258 La. 1952
State v. Ridgway, 178 La.
State v. Bentley 54 So. 2d 137 La. 1951
769 , ; , ; State v. Bessar, 213 La.