Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State ex rel. Lewis v. Henderson, 281 So. 2d 95.

17 citing documents.

  • State v. Hicks 395 So. 2d 790 La. 1981
  • State v. Yates 350 So. 2d 1169 La. 1977
  • State v. Gray 351 So. 2d 448 La. 1977
    we held that the refusal of the trial court to order production of a gun for purposes of identification when that identification was crucial to the claim of self-defense constituted a denial of due process.
  • State v. Hodges 349 So. 2d 250 La. 1977
  • State v. Tyler 342 So. 2d 574 La. 1977
    When proper allegations support a finding that the defendant acted in self-defense and specifies that the weapon sought was used by the alleged victim against the defendant, supporting a claim of self-defense, "
  • State v. Robinson 333 So. 2d 923 La. 1976
  • State v. Johnson 333 So. 2d 223 La. 1976
  • State v. Brumfield 329 So. 2d 181 La. 1976
  • State v. Ball 328 So. 2d 81 La. 1976
  • State v. Howard 325 So. 2d 812 La. 1976
  • State v. Johnson 324 So. 2d 349 La. 1975
    the accused, claiming self-defense as justification for his admitted homicide, moved for particulars as to whether a dangerous weapon or instrument was found on the victim's person or in close proximity to the scene of the killing.
  • State v. White 321 So. 2d 491 La. 1975
  • State v. Collins 308 So. 2d 263 La. 1975
  • Distinguished State v. Thomas 306 So. 2d 696 La. 1975
    we held that the defendant was entitled to information about a gun found in close proximity to the victim's body.
  • State v. Hillman 298 So. 2d 746 La. 1974
    In State v. Woodruff, La., (1973), the defendant relied upon a claim of self-defense and filed a motion for a bill of particulars asking if any dangerous weapon or instrument was found on the deceased or near his body at the scene of the homicide.
  • State v. Gray 286 So. 2d 644 La. 1973
    [3] The Court's recent decision in State v. Woodruff, La., (1973) is not relied upon by the defendant.
  • State v. Barnard 287 So. 2d 770 La. 1973
    Later, in State v. Woodruff, La., (1973), this Court considered reversible error the denial of a motion for a *774 bill of particulars as to whether a gun was found on or near the victim, and, if so, its make, model and serial number.