DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Matthews, 324 So. 2d 822.

95 citing documents.

  • State v. Martin 486 So. 2d 333 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    Art. 651, Official Revision Comment (a); State v. Berry, La., (1975).
  • State v. Victores 486 So. 2d 897 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • State v. Necaise 466 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
    Art. 651, Official Revision Comment (a); State v. Berry, La., (1975).
  • Barley v. State, Through State Dept. of Hwys. 463 So. 2d 689 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
  • State v. Williams 461 So. 2d 1118 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
    State v. Kelly, supra; State v. Holmes, 258 La.
  • State v. Brogdon 457 So. 2d 616 La. 1984
  • State v. Brogan 453 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    Art. 651, Official Revision Comment (a); State v. Berry, La., (1975).
  • State v. Glass 455 So. 2d 659 La. 1984
  • State v. Pettaway 450 So. 2d 1345 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Welch 448 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    In the only Louisiana case dealing with this privilege, the Louisiana Supreme Court held the trial court did not err in finding the primary purpose of the minister's visit was not to seek spiritual advice or consolation.
  • State v. Trevathan 432 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Finally, it is well-settled that claims of privilege are preferably determined outside of the presence of the jury, cert.
  • State v. Narcisse 426 So. 2d 118 La. 1983
  • State v. Felde 422 So. 2d 370 La. 1982
  • State v. Edwards 420 So. 2d 663 La. 1982
    Art. 651, Official Revision Comment (a); State v. Berry, La., (1975).
  • State v. Edwards 419 So. 2d 881 La. 1982
  • State v. Smith 408 So. 2d 1110 La. 1981
  • State v. Johnson 404 So. 2d 239 La. 1981
  • State v. Day 400 So. 2d 622 La. 1981
    (1975), this Court stated at 830: "It is improper conduct for either the prosecution or the defense knowingly to call a witness who will claim a privilege, for the purpose of impressing upon the jury the fact of the claim of privilege.
  • Criticized State v. Sayles 395 So. 2d 695 La. 1981
  • State v. Lee 395 So. 2d 700 La. 1981
  • State v. Roy 395 So. 2d 664 La. 1981
  • State v. Bowden 385 So. 2d 787 La. 1980
  • State v. Carter 383 So. 2d 357 La. 1980
    The State first contends that the trial court correctly found that examination of the defendant by a state physician, while defendant was in custody, (La.
  • State v. Walker 376 So. 2d 92 La. 1979
    there the defendant had pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, and, in response to his application, a lunacy commission was appointed.
  • State v. Abercrombie 375 So. 2d 1170 La. 1979
    State v. Plaisance, 252 La.
  • State v. Lecompte 371 So. 2d 239 La. 1979
    Art. 651, Official Revision Comment (a); State v. Berry, La., (1975).
  • State v. Dupre 369 So. 2d 1303 La. 1979
    In light of the continuing validity of the McNaughten rule in Louisiana, it is clear that the trial judge correctly charged the jury on this issue.
  • State v. Andrews 369 So. 2d 1049 La. 1979
  • State v. Lighten 367 So. 2d 372 La. 1979
  • State v. Weber 364 So. 2d 952 La. 1978
    State v. Jones, La., (1978); State v. Johanson, La., (1976); State *957 v. Berry, La., (1975); State v. Rideau, 249 La.
  • Acosta v. Cary 365 So. 2d 4 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    The question is one of privacy rather than patient-physician privilege because plaintiff was never a patient of defendant and therefore the privilege does not attach; State v. Berry, La.1975, , cert.
  • State v. Aucoin 362 So. 2d 503 La. 1978
    (1975), is dispositive of this objection.
  • State v. Willie 360 So. 2d 813 La. 1978
  • State v. Jones 359 So. 2d 95 La. 1978
    State v. Rideau, 249 La.
  • State v. Williams 349 So. 2d 286 La. 1977
    we held that claims of privilege are preferably determined outside the presence of the jury, since undue weight may be given by a jury to the claim of privilege and due to the impossibility of cross-examination on its assertion.
  • State v. Daigle 344 So. 2d 1380 La. 1977
  • State v. Joseph 341 So. 2d 861 La. 1977
    This was not an action initiated by the State to have the witness claim the privilege against self-incrimination as defendants contend, to the effect that it is improper to knowingly call a witness who will claim a privilege for the sole purpose of impressing the jury with the fact that the witness claims the privilege.
  • State v. Fletcher 341 So. 2d 340 La. 1976
  • State v. Watkins 340 So. 2d 235 La. 1976
  • State v. Sharp 338 So. 2d 654 La. 1976
    State v. Nix, Mule and Fulford
  • State v. Lawson 338 So. 2d 627 La. 1976
  • State v. Johanson 332 So. 2d 270 La. 1976
    State v. Plaisance, 252 La.
  • State v. Rudolph 332 So. 2d 806 La. 1976
  • State v. Duhon 332 So. 2d 245 La. 1976
  • State v. Ball 328 So. 2d 81 La. 1976
    We so held recently, , 827 (1974), in rejecting a defendant's claim to privilege founded upon that statute.