foundation requirement in Louisiana

2013Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28 , 98 S.Ct. 2156 , 57 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978).

2013Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28 , 98 S.Ct. 2156 , 57 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978).

2002See, e.g., United States v. Lott, 854 F.2d 244, 250 (7th Cir.1988); State v. Simon, 544 So.2d 610 (La.App. 3 Cir.1989)(holding that in criminal case, a continuous chain of custody need not be proven as long as the evidence as a whole establishes that it is more probable than not that the object introduced is the same as that seized).

1999State v. Atkins, 97-1278, p. 7 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/27/98), 713 So.2d 1168, 1173 .

1997Recently the Louisiana Supreme Court fully examined the law of trade marks and trade names in Gulf Coast Bank v. Gulf Coast Bank & Trust Co., 94-2203 (La.4/10/95), 652 So.2d 1306 .

1995Alternatively, "for the state to avail itself of the statutory presumption of a defendant's intoxication..., it must show that the state has promulgated detailed procedures which will insure the integrity and reliability of the chemical test, including provisions for repair, maintenance, inspection, cleaning, certification, and chemical accuracy." Rowell, 517 So.2d at 800 .

1995Co., 468 So.2d 675, 680 (La.App. 3d Cir.), writ denied, 474 So.2d 1304 (La.1985), stated that "the party seeking to introduce such evidence must first lay a proper foundation for its admission by connecting the specimen with its source, showing that it was properly taken by an authorized person, properly labeled and preserved." Accordingly, it is apparent that satisfying the foundation requirement entails establishing a chain of custody.

1991The Official Comment (b) to Article 806 states that "[T]his Article changes Louisiana law by relaxing the foundation requirement that was strictly imposed in cases such as State v. Reed, 290 So.2d 835 (La. 1974) ..." Article 806 became effective on January 1, 1989.

1991Cleary 3rd Ed. 1984); State v. Heard, 408 So.2d 1247 (La. 1982).

1989An illustration of the strict application of the foundation requirement is found in State v. LaFleur, supra , wherein defense counsel questioned a witness regarding the making of a statement to a fellow inmate while the two were imprisoned.

1984In this regard we note the case of Smith v. State of Alabama, 124 U.S. 465 , 8 S.Ct. 564, 569 , 31 *261 L.Ed.2d 508, 512 (1888) in which the Supreme Court observed: "There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law.

1984In this regard we note the case of Smith v. State of Alabama, 124 U.S. 465 , 8 S.Ct. 564, 569 , 31 *261 L.Ed.2d 508, 512 (1888) in which the Supreme Court observed: "There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law.

1965In Bauer v. Columbia Casualty Company, La.App., 126 So.2d 398 , the Court said: “In order that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may apply, the plaintiff must first present sufficient proof of the existence of all the elements necessary to bring the doctrine into operation, or to lay the foundation for the presumption or inference arising therefrom.

1960Plunkett v. United Electric Service, supra; Gerald v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana, 204 La. 690 , 16 So.2d 233 ; Talbert v. Tyler, supra; Shields v. United Gas Pipe Line Company, supra. In order that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may apply, the plaintiff must first present sufficient proof of the existence of all the elements necessary to bring *401 the doctrine into operation, or to lay the foundation for the presumption or inference arising therefrom.

1960Plunkett v. United Electric Service, supra; Gerald v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana, 204 La. 690 , 16 So.2d 233 ; Talbert v. Tyler, supra; Shields v. United Gas Pipe Line Company, supra. In order that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may apply, the plaintiff must first present sufficient proof of the existence of all the elements necessary to bring *401 the doctrine into operation, or to lay the foundation for the presumption or inference arising therefrom.

1960Plunkett v. United Electric Service, supra; Gerald v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana, 204 La. 690 , 16 So.2d 233 ; Talbert v. Tyler, supra; Shields v. United Gas Pipe Line Company, supra. In order that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may apply, the plaintiff must first present sufficient proof of the existence of all the elements necessary to bring *401 the doctrine into operation, or to lay the foundation for the presumption or inference arising therefrom.

1960Plunkett v. United Electric Service, supra; Gerald v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana, 204 La. 690 , 16 So.2d 233 ; Talbert v. Tyler, supra; Shields v. United Gas Pipe Line Company, supra. In order that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may apply, the plaintiff must first present sufficient proof of the existence of all the elements necessary to bring *401 the doctrine into operation, or to lay the foundation for the presumption or inference arising therefrom.

1928Without it a cause could rarely be kept from miscarrying.’ ” State v. Rose, 114 La. 1061, 1065 , 38 So. 858 .

1928Without it a cause could rarely be kept from miscarrying.’ ” State v. Rose, 114 La. 1061, 1065 , 38 So. 858 .

1895Hackett, 116 U. S. 366 , the substance of the opinion being as follows, viz.: “That a person who hires a hack and gives the driver directions as to the place to which he wishes to be conveyed, but exercises no other control over the conduct of the driver, is not responsible for his acts or negligence, or prevented from recovering against a railroad company for injuries suffered from a collision of its train with the hack, caused by the negligence of both managers of the train and of the driver.” In the course of their opinion, the court reviewed the case of Thorogood vs.