DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Morgan, 30 So. 2d 434.

24 citing documents.

  • State v. Bibb 626 So. 2d 913 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
  • State v. Hodges 526 So. 2d 406 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
    Williams, supra at 339 ; , (1947).
  • State v. Burns 504 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    (1947); McCormick, supra, § 249; 6 Wigmore, supra, §§ 1788-1789.
  • State v. Williams 497 So. 2d 333 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    (1947); State v. Morris, 245 La.
  • State v. Martin 458 So. 2d 454 La. 1984
    (1947); McCormick, supra, section 249; 6 Wigmore, supra, sections 1788-1789.
  • State v. Ford 368 So. 2d 1074 La. 1979
    relayed to him by Richardson was relevant to his state of mind—his fear of Thompson—at the time of the offense; that evidence of the Richardson-Ford conversation was not hearsay, because the reality of the threat by Thompson was irrelevant to the purpose defendant's testimony was to serve; , (1947).
  • State v. Scott 337 So. 2d 1087 La. 1976
    175 , (1963) (reversible error to admit gruesome color photographs taken during the autopsy of the victim where the cause of death had already been established and the only remaining issue was whether the homicide was committed intentionally); , (1947) (reversible error to admit gruesome photographs of the body of the victim for purposes of proving the corpus delicti, nature, scope and extent of the would, when the corpus delicti had already been proven by the coroner's testimony and the introdu
  • State v. Curry 292 So. 2d 212 La. 1974
  • State v. Benjamin 222 So. 2d 853 La. 1969
    Counsel for defendant, , , contends the introduction into evidence of these pictures were gruesome and unnecessary and served no purpose except to prejudice the jury.
  • State v. Benjamin 222 So. 2d 853 La. 1969
    Counsel for defendant, relying on the decision of this court in the case of State v. *53 Morgan, , , contends the introduction into evidence of these pictures were gruesome and unnecessary and served no purpose except to prejudice the jury.
  • State v. Reese 194 So. 2d 729 La. 1967
    and in brief, that this testimony should not have been admitted as it does not come under the exception to the rule that evidence of other crimes is inadmissible, and could not have been admitted for any other purpose than to prejudice the case against the accused in view of its “gruesome” nature, , .
  • State v. Hamilton 187 So. 2d 417 La. 1966
  • State v. Collins 138 So. 2d 546 La. 1962
    e testimony by the participants as to the beating with the lug wrench,” but contends that the photographs were made as gruesome as possible for the sole and only purpose of inflaming the jury, by showing Mrs. Vatis’ head shaved, as she lay on the Emergency Room table, “which magnified the wounds the victim undoubtedly received,” , .
  • State v. Eubanks 124 So. 2d 543 La. 1960
    State v. Morgan is to be regarded as—indeed it is—a case of most unusual circumstances.’ ” , ; but in the light of the jurisprudence which we have discussed at length, we shall not comment on the Morgan case.
  • State v. Kelly 112 So. 2d 674 La. 1959
    538 ; , ; State v. Palmer, 227 La.
  • State v. Stahl 107 So. 2d 670 La. 1958
  • State v. Birdsell 95 So. 2d 290 La. 1957
  • State v. Goins 94 So. 2d 244 La. 1957
    538 ; , ; State v. Haddad, 221 La.
  • State v. Palmer 80 So. 2d 374 La. 1955
    quoting from Scott on Photographic Evidence, sec.
  • State v. McMullan 66 So. 2d 574 La. 1953
    is cited in support of the bill.
  • State v. Solomon 62 So. 2d 481 La. 1952
    is cited'as authority for the contention.
  • State v. Sears 55 So. 2d 881 La. 1951
    Hence, , , on which counsel relies, is inapposite.
  • State v. Sears 55 So. 2d 881 La. 1951
    Hence, , , on which counsel relies, is inapposite.
  • State v. Ross 47 So. 2d 559 La. 1950
    To support this postulation, , .