77 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1959–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Washington v. Texasgreen2 sentences2020Fundamental to due process of law is the right to present a defense, Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973), and to have it fairly considered by the jury, Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967). “[T]he Constitution guarantees criminal defendants ‘a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’” Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 , 106 S.Ct. 2142, 2146 , 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (1986), citing California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 , 104 S.Ct. 2528, 2532 , 81 L.Ed.2d 413 (1984). 2020Fundamental to due process of law is the right to present a defense, Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973), and to have it fairly considered by the jury, Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967). “[T]he Constitution guarantees criminal defendants ‘a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’” Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 , 106 S.Ct. 2142, 2146 , 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (1986), citing California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 , 104 S.Ct. 2528, 2532 , 81 L.Ed.2d 413 (1984). | 2 | 21 |
Chambers v. Mississippigreen2 sentences2020Fundamental to due process of law is the right to present a defense, Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973), and to have it fairly considered by the jury, Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967). “[T]he Constitution guarantees criminal defendants ‘a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’” Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 , 106 S.Ct. 2142, 2146 , 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (1986), citing California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 , 104 S.Ct. 2528, 2532 , 81 L.Ed.2d 413 (1984). 2020Fundamental to due process of law is the right to present a defense, Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973), and to have it fairly considered by the jury, Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967). “[T]he Constitution guarantees criminal defendants ‘a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’” Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 , 106 S.Ct. 2142, 2146 , 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (1986), citing California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 , 104 S.Ct. 2528, 2532 , 81 L.Ed.2d 413 (1984). | 2 | 10 |
State v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2010La.C.Cr.P. art. 718 allows a defendant, upon motion, to scientifically test tangible objects within the possession, custody or control of the state which “1) are favorable to the defendant and which are material and relevant to the issue of guilt | ¡,3or punishment, or (2) are intended for use by the state as evidence at the trial, or (3) were obtained from or belong to the defendant.” In State v. Clark, 414 So.2d 737, 740 (La.1982), the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized that a defendant’s right to present a defense may be impaired when a defendant is denied the opportunity to have his expert 2004La.C.Cr.P. art. 718 allows a defendant, upon motion, to scientifically test tangible objects within the possession, custody or control of the state which "(1) are favorable to the defendant and which are material and relevant to the issue of guilt or punishment, or (2) are intended for use by the state as evidence at the trial, or (3) were obtained from or belong to the defendant." In State v. Clark, 414 So.2d 737, 740 (La.1982), the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized that: Fundamental fairness is violated when a criminal defendant on trial for his liberty is denied the opportunity to have an | 2 | 2 |
State v. Foretgreen2 sentences2008State v. Foret, 628 So.2d 1116, 1130 (La.1993). 2008State v. Foret, 628 So.2d 1116, 1180 (La.1993). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Ludwiggreen2 sentences2005State v. Shaw, 00-1051 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/14/01) , 785 So.2d 34, 45 , writ denied, 01-0969 (La.2/8/02), 807 So.2d 861 (citing State v. Ludwig, 423 So.2d 1073, 1079 (La.1982)). 2001State v. Ludwig, 423 So.2d 1073, 1079 (La.1982). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Cartergreen2 sentences1998Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967); State v. Hamilton, 441 So.2d 1192 (La.1983); State v. Carter, 570 So.2d 234, 236 (La.App. 5th Cir.1990). 1997Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967); State v. Hamilton, 441 So.2d 1192 (La.1983); State v. Carter, 570 So.2d 234, 236 (La.App. 5th Cir.1990). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Cartergreen2 sentences2007State v. Mosby, 595 So.2d 1135 (La.1992); State v. Pugh, 02-171 (La.App. 5th Cir.10/16/02), 831 So.2d 341 , citing State v. Mosby, supra ; State v. Carter, 96-358 (La.App. 5th Cir.11/26/96), 685 So.2d 346 ; and La. 2000State v. Winfrey, 97-427 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/28/97) , 703 So.2d 63, 76 , writ denied, 98-0264 (La.6/19/98), 719 So.2d 481 ; State v. Carter, 96-358 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/26/96) , 685 So.2d 346, 351 . | 1 | 3 |
State v. Callowaygreen2 sentences2005Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967); accord State v. Calloway, 97-796 (La.App. 5 Cir. 8/25/98) , 718 So.2d 559, 567 , writs denied 98-2435, 98-2438 (La.1/8/99), 734 So.2d 1229 . 1999Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967); State v. Hamilton, 441 So.2d 1192 (La.1983); State v. Calloway, 97-796 (La.App. 5 Cir. 8/25/98) , 718 So.2d 559 , writs denied, 98-2435, 98-2438 (La.1/8/99), 734 So.2d 1229 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Selfgreen2 sentences2005Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967); accord State v. Calloway, 97-796 (La.App. 5 Cir. 8/25/98) , 718 So.2d 559, 567 , writs denied 98-2435, 98-2438 (La.1/8/99), 734 So.2d 1229 . 1999Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967); State v. Hamilton, 441 So.2d 1192 (La.1983); State v. Calloway, 97-796 (La.App. 5 Cir. 8/25/98) , 718 So.2d 559 , writs denied, 98-2435, 98-2438 (La.1/8/99), 734 So.2d 1229 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Trahangreen2 sentences1994As stated by this court in State v. Trahan, 543 So.2d 984 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1989), affirmed, 576 So.2d 1 (La.1990), "the right to present a defense is not without limits". 1991See State v. Trahan, 543 So.2d 984 (La.App. 3d Cir.1989), overruled on other grounds, 551 So.2d 1303, 1304 (La.1989). | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Taylorgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Taylorgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Shoemakergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Simpsongreen | 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. Van Winkle
green
2 sentences2017“It is difficult to imagine rights more inextricably linked to our concept of a fair trial [than the right to present a defense].” Van Winkle, 658 So.2d at 202 ; State v. McMillan, 2009-2094 (La.App. 1st Cir. 7/1/10), 43 So.3d 297, 308 , writ denied, 57 So.3d 309 (La. 2/4/11). 2010“It is difficult to imagine rights more inextricably linked to our concept of a fair trial [than the right to present a defense].” Van Winkle , 94-0947 at p. 5, 658 So.2d at 202 . | 9 | 1997–2026 |
State v. Lirette
green
2 sentences2015State v. Lirette, 11-1167 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/28/12) ; 102 So.3d 801, 813 , writ denied, 12-1694 (La.2/22/13); 108 So.3d 763 . 2015State v. Lirette, 11-1167 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/28/12) ; 102 So.3d 801, 813 , writ denied, 12-1694 (La.2/22/13); 108 So.3d 763 . | 7 | 2013–2015 |
State v. Hamilton
green
2 sentences2001Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967); State v. Hamilton, 441 So.2d 1192 (La.1983). 1984Unlike the case of State v. Hamilton, 441 So.2d 1192 (La.1983), defendant was not deprived of the right to present his defense of insanity. | 7 | 1984–2001 |
State v. Fernandez
neutral
2 sentences2016State v. Fernandez, 09-1727, p. 14 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/6/10), 50 So.3d 219, 229 . 2015State v. Fernandez, 09-1727, p. 14 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/6/10), 50 So.3d 219, 229 . | 6 | 2012–2016 |
State v. Cox
neutral
2 sentences2015State v. Lirette, 11-1167 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/28/12) ; 102 So.3d 801, 813 , writ denied, 12-1694 (La.2/22/13); 108 So.3d 763 . 2014State v. Lirette, 11-1167 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/28/12) , 102 So.3d 801, 813 , writ denied, 12-1694 (La.2/22/13), 108 So.3d 763 . | 5 | 2013–2015 |
State v. Mosby
green
2 sentences2013Fernandez, 50 So.3d at 229 ; State v. Mosby, 595 So.2d 1135 (La.1992); La. 2012State v. Mosby, 595 So.2d 1135 (La.1992); State v. Laster, 44,870 (La.App.2d Cir.02/03/10), 33 So.3d 259 . | 5 | 2007–2013 |
State v. Shaw
green
2 sentences2011Marsalis, supra, (citing State v. Shaw, 00-1051 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/14/01) , 785 So.2d 34, 45 , writ denied, 01-0969 (La.2/8/02), 807 So.2d 861 ). 2005State v. Shaw, 00-1051 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/14/01) , 785 So.2d 34, 45 , writ denied, 01-0969 (La.2/8/02), 807 So.2d 861 . *1089 Relevant evidence is "evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." LSA-C.E. art. 401. | 4 | 2001–2011 |
California v. Trombetta
green
2 sentences2020Fundamental to due process of law is the right to present a defense, Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973), and to have it fairly considered by the jury, Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967). “[T]he Constitution guarantees criminal defendants ‘a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’” Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 , 106 S.Ct. 2142, 2146 , 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (1986), citing California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 , 104 S.Ct. 2528, 2532 , 81 L.Ed.2d 413 (1984). 2020Fundamental to due process of law is the right to present a defense, Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973), and to have it fairly considered by the jury, Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967). “[T]he Constitution guarantees criminal defendants ‘a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’” Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 , 106 S.Ct. 2142, 2146 , 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (1986), citing California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 , 104 S.Ct. 2528, 2532 , 81 L.Ed.2d 413 (1984). | 3 | 2018–2020 |
Crane v. Kentucky
green
2 sentences2020Fundamental to due process of law is the right to present a defense, Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973), and to have it fairly considered by the jury, Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967). “[T]he Constitution guarantees criminal defendants ‘a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’” Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 , 106 S.Ct. 2142, 2146 , 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (1986), citing California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 , 104 S.Ct. 2528, 2532 , 81 L.Ed.2d 413 (1984). 2020Fundamental to due process of law is the right to present a defense, Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973), and to have it fairly considered by the jury, Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967). “[T]he Constitution guarantees criminal defendants ‘a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’” Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 , 106 S.Ct. 2142, 2146 , 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (1986), citing California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 , 104 S.Ct. 2528, 2532 , 81 L.Ed.2d 413 (1984). | 3 | 2018–2020 |
State v. Everett
green
2 sentences2019"This right to present a defense, however, does not require the trial court to permit the introduction of evidence that is irrelevant or has so little probative value that it is substantially outweighed by other legitimate considerations in the administration of justice." Id. 2019"This right to present a defense, however, does not require the trial court to permit the introduction of evidence that is irrelevant or has so little probative value that it is substantially outweighed by other legitimate considerations in the administration of justice." Id. | 3 | 2013–2019 |
State v. Decay
green
2 sentences2017State v. Decay, 07-966 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/19/08) , 989 So.2d 132, 144 , writ denied, 08-1634 (La. 4/13/09), 5 So.3d 161 . 2013State v. Decay, 07-966 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/19/08) , 989 So.2d 182, 144 , writ denied, 08-1634 (La.4/13/09), 5 So.3d 161 . | 3 | 2013–2017 |
State v. Marsalis
green
2 sentences2017State v. Marsalis, 04-827 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/26/05) , 902 So.2d 1081, 1088 . 2013State v. Marsalis, 04-827 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/26/05) , 902 So.2d 1081, 1088 . | 3 | 2009–2017 |
State v. Lewis
neutral
2 sentences2014State v. Lewis, 01-1084 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/13/02) , 815 So.2d 166, 171 , writ denied, 02-1053 (La.11/15/02), 829 So.2d 424 . 2012State v. Lewis, 01-1084, p. 6 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/13/02), 815 So.2d 166, 171 , writ denied, 02-1053 (La.11/15/02), 829 So.2d 424 . | 3 | 2004–2014 |
State v. Lewis
green
2 sentences2014State v. Lewis, 01-1084 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/13/02) , 815 So.2d 166, 171 , writ denied, 02-1053 (La.11/15/02), 829 So.2d 424 . 2012State v. Lewis, 01-1084, p. 6 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/13/02), 815 So.2d 166, 171 , writ denied, 02-1053 (La.11/15/02), 829 So.2d 424 . | 3 | 2004–2014 |
State v. Shaw
green
2 sentences2011Marsalis, supra, (citing State v. Shaw, 00-1051 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/14/01) , 785 So.2d 34, 45 , writ denied, 01-0969 (La.2/8/02), 807 So.2d 861 ). 2005State v. Shaw, 00-1051 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/14/01) , 785 So.2d 34, 45 , writ denied, 01-0969 (La.2/8/02), 807 So.2d 861 . *1089 Relevant evidence is "evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." LSA-C.E. art. 401. | 3 | 2005–2011 |
State v. Clark
neutral
2 sentences2017However, this guarantee does not grant the right to the admission of any type of evidence.” State v. Clark, 95-1046, p. 23 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/6/96), 670 So.2d 624, 636 , writ denied, 96-861 (La. 9/20/96), 679 So.2d 431 (citing State v. Hill, 610 So.2d 1080 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1992)). 1997State v. Clark, 95-1046 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/6/96) , 670 So.2d 624 . | 2 | 1997–2017 |
State v. Decay
green
2 sentences2017State v. Decay, 07-966 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/19/08) , 989 So.2d 132, 144 , writ denied, 08-1634 (La. 4/13/09), 5 So.3d 161 . 2013State v. Decay, 07-966 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/19/08) , 989 So.2d 132, 144 , writ denied, 08-1634 (La.4/13/09), 5 So.3d 161 . | 2 | 2013–2017 |
State v. Dressner
green
2 sentences2016Just as an accused has the right to confront the prosecution’s witnesses for the purpose of challenging their testimony, he has the right to present his own witnesses to establish a defense.”); Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302 , 93 S.Ct. 1038, 1049 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973)(“Few rights are more fundamental than that of an accused to present witnesses in his own defense.”); State v. Dressner, 08-1366, p. 15 (La.7/6/10), 45 So.3d 127, 137-38 ; State v. Mills, 12-0851, p. 9 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/3/13), 120 So.3d 802, 808 . 2015Just as an accused has the right to confront the prosecution’s witnesses for the purpose of challenging their testimony, he has the right to present his own witnesses to establish a defense.”); Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302 , 93 S.Ct. 1038, 1049 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973) (holding that "[f]ew rights are more fundamental than that of an accused to present witnesses in his own defense.”); State v. Dressner, 08-1366, p. 15 (La.7/6/10), 45 So.3d 127, 137-38 . . | 2 | 2015–2016 |
State v. Pugh
green
2 sentences2010State v. Mosby, 595 So.2d 1135 (La.1992); State v. Lathan, supra; State v. Pugh, 02-171 (La.App. 5th Cir.10/16/02), 831 So.2d 341 . 2010State v. Mosby, 595 So.2d 1135 (La.1992); State v. Lathan, supra ; State v. Pugh, 02-171 (La.App. 5th Cir.10/16/02), 831 So.2d 341 . | 2 | 2007–2010 |
United States v. Samuel Buchbinder
green
2 sentences1991State v. Buchbinder, 796 F.2d 910 (7th Cir.1986); U.S. v. Hillsberg, 812 F.2d 328 (7th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1041 , 107 S.Ct. 1981 , 95 L.Ed.2d 821 (1987). 1989In State v. Buchbinder, 796 F.2d 910 (7th Cir.1986), the court held that the exclusion of expert testimony regarding defendant's mental state was appropriate under federal procedural rules. | 2 | 1989–1991 |
| Holmes v. South Carolina green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. McMillan green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Hill green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Carrier green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State ex rel. Hensley v. State green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Smoot green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Stewart green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Prieur red | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Mills neutral | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Hatton green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Johnson neutral | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Strong neutral | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. McCullough green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. McCullough green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Green neutral | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Morgan green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Johnson green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Vigee green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Tauzin neutral | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Winfrey green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.