Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Louisiana opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Buckbee v. United Gas Pipe Line Co. Inc.green2 sentences2024Furthermore, in determining whether a hearsay statement meets the present sense impression exception, the critical factor is whether the statement was made while the individual was " perceiving" the event or " immediately thereafter." This immediacy requirement permits only the passage of "time needed for translating observation into speech." Buckbee v. United Cas Pipe Line Company, Inc., 561 So.2d 76, 84 ( La. 1990). 2006In State v. Jones, 98-1055 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/23/99) , 729 So.2d 95, 98 , citing Buckbee v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., Inc., 561 So.2d 76 (La.1990), this Court noted that the Louisiana Supreme Court previously explained a present sense impression exception to the general rule against admitting hearsay, finding, "[t]he statement may follow `immediately' after perceiving an event, allowing only for `the time needed for translating observation into speech.'" Mr. Shipley's statement to Detective Wall did not constitute a present sense impression because it was not made immediately after the event, a | 2 | 3 |
State v. Browngreen1 sentence2005See State v. Brown, supra ; State v. Huff, 27, 212 (La.App. 2d Cir.8/23/95), 660 So.2d 529 , writ denied, 96-0212 (La.5/1/97), 693 So.2d 754 . [2] The state urges in brief that the defendant essentially forfeited his right under Crawford to cross-examine Mr. Dabney because he shot and killed Mr. Dabney, effectively and permanently making him unavailable. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Jones
neutral
2 sentences2014State v. Jones, 98-1055 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/23/99) , 729 So.2d 95, 98 . 2006In State v. Jones, 98-1055 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/23/99) , 729 So.2d 95, 98 , citing Buckbee v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., Inc., 561 So.2d 76 (La.1990), this Court noted that the Louisiana Supreme Court previously explained a present sense impression exception to the general rule against admitting hearsay, finding, "[t]he statement may follow `immediately' after perceiving an event, allowing only for `the time needed for translating observation into speech.'" Mr. Shipley's statement to Detective Wall did not constitute a present sense impression because it was not made immediately after the event, a | 3 | 1999–2014 |
State v. Francois
green
2 sentences2023App. 5 Cir. 1/31/14), 134 So.3d 42, 56 . 2019“In determining whether a statement qualifies as a present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule, the critical factor is whether the statement was made while the declarant was perceiving the event or immediately thereafter.” State v. Francois, 13-0616, p. 20 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/31/14), 134 So.3d 42, 56 . | 2 | 2019–2023 |
State v. Ditcharo
green
2 sentences2006In State v. Ditcharo, 98-1374 (La.App. 5 Cir. 7/27/99) , 739 So.2d 957, 963 , writ denied, 99-2551 (La.2/18/00), 754 So.2d 964 , this Court found that an officer's testimony was admissible as a present sense impression exception to the general rule against admitting hearsay, as provided for in La. 2000Cf. State v. Ditcharo, 98-1374, p. 10 (La.App. 5 Cir. 7/27/99), 739 So.2d 957, 963 , writ denied, 99-2551 (La.2/18/00), 754 So.2d 964 (where the victim spoke to the police five minutes after she was stabbed and just after she jumped from the defendant's car, officer's testimony about the victim's statements found admissible under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule). | 2 | 2000–2006 |
State v. Ditcharo
green
2 sentences2006In State v. Ditcharo, 98-1374 (La.App. 5 Cir. 7/27/99) , 739 So.2d 957, 963 , writ denied, 99-2551 (La.2/18/00), 754 So.2d 964 , this Court found that an officer's testimony was admissible as a present sense impression exception to the general rule against admitting hearsay, as provided for in La. 2000Cf. State v. Ditcharo, 98-1374, p. 10 (La.App. 5 Cir. 7/27/99), 739 So.2d 957, 963 , writ denied, 99-2551 (La.2/18/00), 754 So.2d 964 (where the victim spoke to the police five minutes after she was stabbed and just after she jumped from the defendant's car, officer's testimony about the victim's statements found admissible under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule). | 2 | 2000–2006 |
State v. Heggar
green
1 sentence2014On January 8, 2013, a hearing was conducted on Defendant’s motion in limine, which the trial court denied on March 18, 2013, concluding that the testimony was admissible under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule, as set forth in State v. Heggar, 39,915 (La.App. 2 Cir. 8/17/05), 908 So.2d 1245 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Everett
green
1 sentence2014Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Price
green
1 sentence2008Id., 05-2514 at 13, 952 So.2d at 120 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Parish
green
1 sentence2008Id., 05-2514 at 13, 952 So.2d at 120 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Huff
neutral
1 sentence2005See State v. Brown, supra ; State v. Huff, 27, 212 (La.App. 2d Cir.8/23/95), 660 So.2d 529 , writ denied, 96-0212 (La.5/1/97), 693 So.2d 754 . [2] The state urges in brief that the defendant essentially forfeited his right under Crawford to cross-examine Mr. Dabney because he shot and killed Mr. Dabney, effectively and permanently making him unavailable. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Huff
green
1 sentence2005See State v. Brown, supra ; State v. Huff, 27, 212 (La.App. 2d Cir.8/23/95), 660 So.2d 529 , writ denied, 96-0212 (La.5/1/97), 693 So.2d 754 . [2] The state urges in brief that the defendant essentially forfeited his right under Crawford to cross-examine Mr. Dabney because he shot and killed Mr. Dabney, effectively and permanently making him unavailable. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.