witnesses defense in Louisiana

1928State v. Dunn, 161 La. 586 , 109 So. 56 ; State v. Garner, 135 La. 746 , 66 So. 181 ; State v. Johnson, 48 La.

1928State v. Dunn, 161 La. 586 , 109 So. 56 ; State v. Garner, 135 La. 746 , 66 So. 181 ; State v. Johnson, 48 La.

1928State v. Dunn, 161 La. 586 , 109 So. 56 ; State v. Garner, 135 La. 746 , 66 So. 181 ; State v. Johnson, 48 La.

1926State v. Garner, 135 La. 746 , 66 So. 181 ; State v. Johnson, 48 La.

2017Hall, 67 So.3d at 639 .

2001The trial judge "must be given a wide measure of discretion in determining whether a tardy disclosure [of exculpatory material] jeopardizes effective utilization of the evidence and what remedy, if any, should be granted." State v. Prudholm, 446 So.2d at 738 .

1997In State v. Gachot, 609 So.2d 269 (La.App. 3 Cir.1992), writ denied, 617 So.2d 1180 (La. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 980 , 114 S.Ct. 478 , 126 L.Ed.2d 429 (1993), this court faced a similar issue.

1997In State v. Gachot, 609 So.2d 269 (La.App. 3 Cir.1992), writ denied, 617 So.2d 1180 (La. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 980 , 114 S.Ct. 478 , 126 L.Ed.2d 429 (1993), this court faced a similar issue.

1997In State v. Gachot, 609 So.2d 269 (La.App. 3 Cir.1992), writ denied, 617 So.2d 1180 (La. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 980 , 114 S.Ct. 478 , 126 L.Ed.2d 429 (1993), this court faced a similar issue.

1997In State v. Gachot, 609 So.2d 269 (La.App. 3 Cir.1992), writ denied, 617 So.2d 1180 (La. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 980 , 114 S.Ct. 478 , 126 L.Ed.2d 429 (1993), this court faced a similar issue.

1990Pearce, supra. After observing all the witnesses and hearing all the testimony, the trial court obviously concluded that Mr. Trapani’s actions constituted cruel treatment, thus giving Mrs. Trapani lawful cause to leave the family home.

1989State v. Belton, 377 So.2d 1229 (La.1979). *428 The testimony of the witnesses at the hearing on the motion to suppress evidence on August 3, 1984, and at the trial was substantially the same and without any inconsistencies.

1988In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (La.1984), the United States Supreme Court articulated the most recent test for determining whether counsel has been ineffective.

1988In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (La.1984), the United States Supreme Court articulated the most recent test for determining whether counsel has been ineffective.

1984State v. Thompson, supra. Compare State v. Sonnier, 402 So.2d 650 (La.1981).

1978Since the evidence adduced at trial does not affect the result we reach in the instant case, our relation of the pertinent facts is based only upon the testimony given at the suppression hearing. [2] South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 , 380 n. 6, 96 S.Ct. 3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976).

1978Since the evidence adduced at trial does not affect the result we reach in the instant case, our relation of the pertinent facts is based only upon the testimony given at the suppression hearing. [2] South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 , 380 n. 6, 96 S.Ct. 3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976).

1972Art. 764 to “modify its order in the interest of justice.” This Court held in State v. Raymond, 258 La. 1 , 245 So.2d 335 (1971) that any “modification of order excluding witnesses from courtroom will not be disturbed on appeal in absence of abuse of discretion.” The trial judge did say he would place all the witnesses under the rule as soon as they appear, and that none would be allowed in the courtroom to hear any of the proceedings.

1972Art. 764 to “modify its order in the interest of justice.” This Court held in State v. Raymond, 258 La. 1 , 245 So.2d 335 (1971) that any “modification of order excluding witnesses from courtroom will not be disturbed on appeal in absence of abuse of discretion.” The trial judge did say he would place all the witnesses under the rule as soon as they appear, and that none would be allowed in the courtroom to hear any of the proceedings.

1932App. 682 , 137 So. 383, 384 , in 'Which, with regard to the probability of experienced doctors overlooking a hernia, we said: “ * ⅜ ⅜ n0 man suffering such an injury as Cooper is said to have sustained, and with a hernia so large as that which the witnesses claim to have seen, would have visited a doctor without at once calling such a thing to his attention; and, second, because, even without his attention having been directed to it, we cannot believe that an experienced, capable physician would have overlooked such an obvious extreme abnormality.

1931Bagneris v. Smoot, 159 La. 1049 , 106 So. 561 .

1931Bagneris v. Smoot, 159 La. 1049 , 106 So. 561 .

1928State v. Dunn, 161 La. 586 , 109 So. 56 ; State v. Garner, 135 La. 746 , 66 So. 181 ; State v. Johnson, 48 La.