Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Fontenot v. Hanover Insurance Co., 465 So. 2d 679.

61 citing documents.

State of Louisiana Versus Press Shorter, III La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
State Of Louisiana v. Glenn David Mills Jr La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
3d 213, 219- 20 ( trial court erred in precluding the defendant from cross- examining witnesses regarding their guilty pleas); ( La.
State Of Louisiana v. Ollie Montrell Selders, Jr. La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
C. E. art. 607( D)( 1); State u Rankin, ( La.
State v. Mills 259 So. 3d 1045 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
art. 607D(1); , 681 (La.
State v. Harris 235 So. 3d 1354 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2017
State v. White 228 So. 3d 213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Robert Glen Coleman 188 So. 3d 174 La. 2016
State v. Mills 153 So. 3d 481 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Hatfield 155 So. 3d 572 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
“The possibility that the prosecution may have leverage over a witness due to that witnesses] pending criminal charges is recognized as a valid area of cross-examination.” Burbank , 2002-1407, *606 p. 2, 872 So.2d at 1050 ().
State v. Weathersby 140 So. 3d 260 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 10/24/12) , , writ denied, 2012-2494 (La.5/31/13), ; , 681 (La.1985) (“The possibility that the prosecution may have leverage over a witness due to that witness’ [s] pending criminal charges is recognized as a valid area of cross-examination.”) *274 (La.App.
State v. Blueford 137 So. 3d 54 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Quinn 123 So. 3d 320 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
“The possibility that the prosecution may have leverage over a witness due to that witnesses] pending criminal charges is recognized as a valid area of cross-examination.” Burbank , 02-1407, p. 2, 872 So.2d at 1050
State v. Dorsey 94 So. 3d 49 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
5 Cir. 4/26/11), (citing, ).
State v. Abdul 94 So. 3d 801 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
5 Cir. 4/26/11), , 592 9 ( ).
State v. Johnson 91 So. 3d 365 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
15 It is well-settled that a witness’s “hope or knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish bias or interest.” State v. Bowie, 2000-3344 (La.4/3/02), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Tracy Wayne Bowie La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Bowie 101 So. 3d 46 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Wiley 68 So. 3d 583 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Bradley 995 So. 2d 1230 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
Burbank , XXXX-XXXX, p. 2, 872 So.2d at 1050
State v. Lacaze 947 So. 2d 716 La. 2007
(“The possibility that the prosecution may have leverage over a witness due to that witnesses] pending criminal charges is recognized as a valid area of cross-examination.”); (“Fear that police will inflict additional harm on another has been recognized a
State v. Burbank 893 So. 2d 109 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
State v. Divers 889 So. 2d 335 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); State v. Thomas, 32,215 (La.App.2d Cir.8/18/99), , writ denied, 1999-2806 (La.4/7/00), .
State v. Burbank 872 So. 2d 1049 La. 2004
State v. Vale, 95-1230, p. 4 (La.1/26/96), ; (La.
State v. Royal 857 So. 2d 1167 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
*1172 The possibility that the State may have some “leverage over a witness due to that witness’s pending criminal charges is recognized as a valid area of cross-examination.”
State v. Jones 841 So. 2d 965 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State v. Williams 818 So. 2d 274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the defendant was entitled to cross examine a witness and the witness’ | sattorney about a plea agreement entered into with the State in which the witness agreed to testify against the defendant truthfully.
State v. Bowie 813 So. 2d 377 La. 2002
607(C),(D) (authorizing admission of intrinsic and extrinsic evidence to show bias, interest or corruption); -1063 (La.1985); -755 (La.1985); , 681 (La.1985); (La.
State v. Marcantel 815 So. 2d 50 La. 2002
State v. Burbank 811 So. 2d 1112 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
in support of his argument.
State v. Davis 818 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Rollins 749 So. 2d 890 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Defendant argues that he should have been allowed to question Ms. Shaw on the arrest because of the potential for possible leverage that the government might have been able to exert over her, (La.App.
State v. Thomas 747 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974)
State v. Calloway 718 So. 2d 559 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
State v. Everidge 702 So. 2d 680 La. 1997
Kosmitis v. Bailey 685 So. 2d 1177 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
art. 506; Smith v. Kavanaugh, Pierson & Talley
State v. Dunn 651 So. 2d 1378 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
State v. Giles 639 So. 2d 323 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
4th Cir.), writ granted and writ denied , affirmed
State v. Griffin 618 So. 2d 680 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
State v. Williams 618 So. 2d 606 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
State v. Bourg 615 So. 2d 957 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
State v. Smith 604 So. 2d 995 La. 1992
State v. Smith 604 So. 2d 995 La. 1992
State v. Esponge 593 So. 2d 677 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
State v. Smith 591 So. 2d 1219 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
Likewise, the defense sought to elicit testimony concerning an alleged plea bargain agreement, wherein the State's witness agreed to testify against the defendant in exchange for the reduction of a pending charge against him from a felony to a misdemeanor.
State v. Trosclair 584 So. 2d 270 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
State v. Carter 572 So. 2d 1131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Revere 572 So. 2d 117 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Brumfield 546 So. 2d 1241 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Howard 517 So. 2d 266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974)
State v. Firstley 503 So. 2d 568 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by