Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Kimble, 36 So. 2d 637.
- State v. Williams 569 So. 2d 1031 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
- State v. White 559 So. 2d 541 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
-
State v. Palmer
448 So. 2d 765
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
See, , (1948); State v. Green, 244 La.
-
State v. Jacobs
344 So. 2d 659
La. 1977
793 , (1962); , (1948); State v. Garon, 158 La.
- State v. Thompson 331 So. 2d 848 La. 1976
-
State v. Williams
331 So. 2d 467
La. 1976
793 , (1962); , (1948); State v. Garon, 158 La.
- State v. Murphy 309 So. 2d 134 La. 1975
- State v. Smith 285 So. 2d 240 La. 1973
-
State v. Favre
232 So. 2d 479
La. 1970
t is not violative of the hearsay rule for a police officer to state that he made an arrest or a search and seizure as the result of information received or a complaint, the exception is limited to the statement of the fact — for, whenever he is permitted to explain the nature of the information or *702 complaint, lie does not testify to a fact but to what someone else told him.” , .
-
State v. Oliver
174 So. 2d 509
La. 1965
80 , , the officers were not testifying as to anything told them anent the criminal acts of the parties involved ( , ); they were merely relating the background of their investigation and their answers “ * * * did not tend to connect the accused with any criminal activity in the narcotics traffic or in any other field.” *746 Moreover, if it be conceded that the testimony was hearsay in the strict sense of the term, it
-
State v. Oliver
174 So. 2d 509
La. 1965
80 , , the officers were not testifying as to anything told them anent the criminal acts of the parties involved ( , ); they were merely relating the background of their investigation and their answers "* * * did not tend to connect the accused with any criminal activity in the narcotics traffic or in any other field."
-
State v. Green
150 So. 2d 571
La. 1963
quoted with appx-oval the following extract from Smith v. United States, 70 App.D.C.
-
State v. Elkins
38 So. 2d 150
La. 1948
The bill was taken to the judge’s action in permitting the arresting officer to state, over timely objection, “We had a tip on Roy Elkins selling on that road * * This declaration was clearly hearsay and *503 , 36 So.
-
State v. Lowery
38 So. 2d 77
La. 1948
e purpose of sale in the Parish of Union, where the sale of intoxicating liquors is prohibited by an ordinance of the Police Jury, and his sentence thereunder to serve 60 days in the parish jail and to pay a fine of $301 and costs (in default of paying the fine to serve an additional eight months in jail), , , where the identical issue here raised was presented and declared adversely tO‘ the cause of the state, is controlling, and, accordingly, that the defendant is entitled to a new trial *467