Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Cannon, 427 So. 2d 827.

86 citing documents.

Cheri Hayden v. Frederick Boutte, Warden La. 2024
State of Louisiana v. Dereginald L. King La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
3 Cir. 10/1/08), 2008 WL 4415697 (unpublished opinion) ( ).
State of Louisiana Versus Damon Stephney La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
App. 5 Cir. 7/29/03), ( (La.
State of Louisiana v. Demetrius D. Nash La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
This is in line with pronouncements from our supreme court that has “consistently held that recantations of trial testimony should be looked upon with the utmost suspicion.” (La.
State of Louisiana Versus Frank Kang La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2020
State of Louisiana v. Desmyne Joseph Henry La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
3 Cir. 10/1/08) (unpublished opinion) ( ).2 At the pre-trial hearing in the present case, Defendant objected to the cell phone incident as being totally unrelated to the drug charges currently at issue.
State of Louisiana v. Joshua David Evans La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
State v. Chester 208 So. 3d 338 La. 2016
prosecutors told her they would put her in jail and take away her child.” However, because the courts must view recantations “with utmost suspicion,” (La.
State of Louisiana v. Lloyd Richardson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
-33 (La.1982) (citations omitted).
State v. Richardson 206 So. 3d 1179 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
-33 (La.1982) (citations omitted).
Clayton v. Cannizzaro 197 So. 3d 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Maise 167 So. 3d 592 La. 2015
-33 (La.1982) (on reh’g).
State v. Maise 167 So. 3d 600 La. 2015
-33 (La.1982) (on reh’g).
State v. Maise 167 So. 3d 608 La. 2015
-33 (La.1982) (on reh'g).
State v. Maise 172 So. 3d 639 La. 2015
-33 (La.1982) (on reh'g).
State v. Armstead 159 So. 3d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State of Louisiana v. Quincy McKinnies, Jr. 171 So. 3d 861 La. 2014
State v. Briley 151 So. 3d 633 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
The Louisiana Supreme Court has recognized that “recantations are highly suspicious and, except in rare circumstances, a motion for new trial should not be granted on the basis of a recantation since that disclaimer is tantamount to admission of perjury so as to discredit the witness at a later trial.” ().
State v. Taylor 143 So. 3d 1248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State of Louisiana v. Alcide Hypolite La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
3 Cir. 10/1/08) (unpublished opinion) ( ).
State v. Hypolite 139 So. 3d 687 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
3 Cir. 10/1/08), 2008 WL 4415697 (unpublished opinion) ( ).
State v. Quang T. Do 130 So. 3d 377 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Smith 96 So. 3d 678 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State of Louisiana v. Brandon Dale Allen La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
3 Cir. 12/7/94), this court held that “[t]he trial court‟s application of these precepts to newly discovered evidence is entitled to great weight, and its denial of a new trial will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” Defendant attached to the supplemental motion three handw
State v. Allen 79 So. 3d 1220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
3 Cir. 12/7/94), , this court held that “[t]he trial court’s application of these precepts to newly discovered evidence is entitled to great weight, and its denial of a new trial will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” Defendant attached to the supplemental motion three handwritten statements
State v. Dennis 72 So. 3d 968 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
: This court has consistently held that the trial judge is accorded considerable discretion in evaluating the impact of newly discovered evidence on the verdict and its reliability, and its ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion.
State v. Sparks 68 So. 3d 435 La. 2011
Rather, the court applied the outcome determinative test for granting new trials on newly discovered evidence — “not simply whether another jury might bring in a different verdict, but whether the new evidence is so material that it ought to produce a verdict different from that rendered at trial.”
State of Louisiana v. Gregory P. Landry La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. Lofton 992 So. 2d 593 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
State v. Wilhite 961 So. 2d 565 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
State v. McClain 877 So. 2d 1135 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
State v. Greco 862 So. 2d 1152 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
State v. Haygood, 26,102 (La.
State v. Bolden 852 So. 2d 1050 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State v. Taves 846 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
State v. Bowers 792 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Anderson 786 So. 2d 917 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
State v. Nelson 775 So. 2d 579 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
State v. Davis 768 So. 2d 201 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Odom 760 So. 2d 576 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
State v. Johnson 750 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
State v. Brooks 758 So. 2d 814 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
the court stated: Recantations of trial testimony should be looked upon with utmost suspicion.
State v. Coleman 720 So. 2d 381 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
State v. Bunch 695 So. 2d 1341 La. 1997
cf. Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 403-04 , 113 S.Ct.
State v. Brown 677 So. 2d 1057 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
art. 103A(1); (on rehearing).
State v. Guidry 647 So. 2d 502 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
State v. Stewart 633 So. 2d 925 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
art. 841; (on rehearing).
State v. Bibb 626 So. 2d 913 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
State v. Wiley 614 So. 2d 862 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
2d Cir.1989), writ denied
State v. Smith 601 So. 2d 361 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
(on rehearing); (La.App.
State v. Myers 584 So. 2d 242 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
The trial judge's application of these precepts to newly discovered evidence is entitled to great weight, and his denial of a motion will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of that discretion, State v. Prudholm, supra; (on rehearing); State v. Talbot, supra.