10 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2019 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Weedongreen2 sentences1981In State v. Weedon, supra , we quoted with approval a concurring opinion in Raymond which explained the state of mind exception as follows: "... conduct or declarations of the decedent shortly before his killing may sometimes be admissible as tending to show *556 the immediately antecedent circumstances explanatory of the killing and connecting the accused with it." Id. at 646. 1981In State v. Weedon, supra , we quoted with approval a concurring opinion in Raymond which explained the state of mind exception as follows: "... conduct or declarations of the decedent shortly before his killing may sometimes be admissible as tending to show *556 the immediately antecedent circumstances explanatory of the killing and connecting the accused with it." Id. at 646. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Raymondgreen2 sentences2019Admission in this instance is “based upon the expedient rule sometimes relied upon in homicide cases that ‘conduct or declarations of the decedent shortly before his killing may sometimes be admissible as tending to show the immediately antecedent circumstances explanatory of the killing and connecting the accused with it.’ ” State v. Weedon, 342 So.2d 642, 646 (La.1977), quoting State v. Raymond, 258 La. 1 , 245 So.2d 335, 342 (1971) (Tate, J., concurring). 2019Admission in this instance is “based upon the expedient rule sometimes relied upon in homicide cases that ‘conduct or declarations of the decedent shortly before his killing may sometimes be admissible as tending to show the immediately antecedent circumstances explanatory of the killing and connecting the accused with it.’ ” State v. Weedon, 342 So.2d 642, 646 (La.1977), quoting State v. Raymond, 258 La. 1 , 245 So.2d 335, 342 (1971) (Tate, J., concurring). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Dozegreen1 sentence2012See State v. Doze, 384 So.2d 351, 353 (La.1980). | 1 | 1 |
Horton v. Allengreen1 sentence2005See also, Horton v. Allen , ("The state-of-mind exception has been recognized by the Supreme Court and the SJC [Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts]." Id. 370 F.3d at 85 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2005See, State v. Brown, 562 So.2d 868, 877 (La.1990). 2005See also, Horton v. Allen , ("The state-of-mind exception has been recognized by the Supreme Court and the SJC [Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts]." Id. 370 F.3d at 85 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kleingreen1 sentence1988The Supreme Court considered a very similar situation in State v. Klein, 351 So.2d 1158, 1160 (La.1977), a case in which the state objected to a hearsay statement by a witness and defense counsel did not argue the point; the court declared: An irregularity or error cannot be availed of after verdict unless it was objected to at the time of the occurrence. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Porrettogreen1 sentence1988Circumstantial evidence, even though logically relevant, should be excluded "if its probative value is outweighed by the risk that its admission will cosume too much time, unnecessarily confuse the jury concerning the issues to be determined, tend to excite the emotions of the jury to the undue prejudice of the opponent, or unfairly surprise the opponent." State v. Porretto, 468 So.2d 1142, 1148 (La.1985). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Codygreen1 sentence1987See also State v. Cody, 446 So.2d 1278 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1984), wherein the court noted that the trial court expressly accepted that the purpose of the testimony was to show the mental state of the witness or the impression upon him rather than the truthfulness of the matter asserted; and State v. Burns, 504 So.2d 124 (La.App. 2nd Cir.), writ denied, 505 So.2d 1142 (La.1987), wherein the court noted that the state had offered testimony under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule but found that the contested evidence was actually nonhearsay testimony explaining the sequence of events l | 1 | 1 |
State v. Martingreen1 sentence1980These statements were hearsay"testimony in court, or written evidence of a statement made out of court, the statement being offered as an assertion to show the truth of matters asserted therein, and thus resting for its value upon the credibility of the out-of-court asserter." State v. Martin, 356 So.2d 1370, 1373 (La. 1978). | 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. Short
green
1 sentence2008State v. Leonard, 05-42 at 16, 910 So.2d at 987 . 5 . ((See also State v. Short, 06-1451, pp. 6-7 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/16/07), 958 So.2d 93, 97 , writ denied, 07-1646 (La.2/1/08), 976 So.2d 715 (statements made were non-testimonial and their admission did not violate the ruling in Crawford, citing State v. Miller, 95 Conn. App. 362 , 896 A.2d 844 (2006), "the statements at issue are the sort of remarks to an acquaintance that the Crawford [CJourt proclaimed to be non-testimonial,” and "[t]he courts of this land, both federal and state, are in agreement that statements made to friends in unofficia | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Leonard
green
1 sentence2008State v. Leonard, 05-42 at 16, 910 So.2d at 987 . 5 . ((See also State v. Short, 06-1451, pp. 6-7 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/16/07), 958 So.2d 93, 97 , writ denied, 07-1646 (La.2/1/08), 976 So.2d 715 (statements made were non-testimonial and their admission did not violate the ruling in Crawford, citing State v. Miller, 95 Conn. App. 362 , 896 A.2d 844 (2006), "the statements at issue are the sort of remarks to an acquaintance that the Crawford [CJourt proclaimed to be non-testimonial,” and "[t]he courts of this land, both federal and state, are in agreement that statements made to friends in unofficia | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Theriot
green
1 sentence2008State v. Leonard, 05-42 at 16, 910 So.2d at 987 . 5 . ((See also State v. Short, 06-1451, pp. 6-7 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/16/07), 958 So.2d 93, 97 , writ denied, 07-1646 (La.2/1/08), 976 So.2d 715 (statements made were non-testimonial and their admission did not violate the ruling in Crawford, citing State v. Miller, 95 Conn. App. 362 , 896 A.2d 844 (2006), "the statements at issue are the sort of remarks to an acquaintance that the Crawford [CJourt proclaimed to be non-testimonial,” and "[t]he courts of this land, both federal and state, are in agreement that statements made to friends in unofficia | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Miller
green
2 sentences2008State v. Leonard, 05-42 at 16, 910 So.2d at 987 . 5 . ((See also State v. Short, 06-1451, pp. 6-7 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/16/07), 958 So.2d 93, 97 , writ denied, 07-1646 (La.2/1/08), 976 So.2d 715 (statements made were non-testimonial and their admission did not violate the ruling in Crawford, citing State v. Miller, 95 Conn. App. 362 , 896 A.2d 844 (2006), "the statements at issue are the sort of remarks to an acquaintance that the Crawford [CJourt proclaimed to be non-testimonial,” and "[t]he courts of this land, both federal and state, are in agreement that statements made to friends in unofficia 2008State v. Leonard, 05-42 at 16, 910 So.2d at 987 . 5 . ((See also State v. Short, 06-1451, pp. 6-7 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/16/07), 958 So.2d 93, 97 , writ denied, 07-1646 (La.2/1/08), 976 So.2d 715 (statements made were non-testimonial and their admission did not violate the ruling in Crawford, citing State v. Miller, 95 Conn. App. 362 , 896 A.2d 844 (2006), "the statements at issue are the sort of remarks to an acquaintance that the Crawford [CJourt proclaimed to be non-testimonial,” and "[t]he courts of this land, both federal and state, are in agreement that statements made to friends in unofficia | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Worley v. United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
green
2 sentences2005Id. at 84 . [9] Thereafter, the Horton court held that Christian's statements did not violate Horton's Confrontation Clause rights under Ohio v. Roberts because Christian was unavailable and because the state of mind exception was a firmly rooted hearsay exception. 2005Id. at 85 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Mason
green
1 sentence2005See, the 1988 Official Revision Comment to Article 803(3)(a), which provides that Paragraph (3) clarifies prior Louisiana law and generally follows Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3). [7] The statement was made around 7:00 p.m. and the coroner testified that the victim died sometime prior to midnight. [8] In State v. Leonard, 04-1609 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/27/05) , ___ So.2d ___, 2005 WL 1039635 , the court held that a coroner's report was not "testimonial hearsay." [9] See also, State v. Mason, 110 P.3d 245 (Wash.App.2005), in which the court recognized that the purpose for which the statements were | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Leonard
green
1 sentence2005See, the 1988 Official Revision Comment to Article 803(3)(a), which provides that Paragraph (3) clarifies prior Louisiana law and generally follows Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3). [7] The statement was made around 7:00 p.m. and the coroner testified that the victim died sometime prior to midnight. [8] In State v. Leonard, 04-1609 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/27/05) , ___ So.2d ___, 2005 WL 1039635 , the court held that a coroner's report was not "testimonial hearsay." [9] See also, State v. Mason, 110 P.3d 245 (Wash.App.2005), in which the court recognized that the purpose for which the statements were | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Tonubbee
green
1 sentence1990State v. Tonubbee, 420 So.2d 126 (La.1982), cert. den., Tonubbee v. Louisiana, 460 U.S. 1081 , 103 S.Ct. 1768 , 76 L.Ed.2d 342 (1983). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Dunne v. Hansen
green
1 sentence1990State v. Tonubbee, 420 So.2d 126 (La.1982), cert. den., Tonubbee v. Louisiana, 460 U.S. 1081 , 103 S.Ct. 1768 , 76 L.Ed.2d 342 (1983). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Tribble
green
1 sentence1990State v. Tonubbee, 420 So.2d 126 (La.1982), cert. den., Tonubbee v. Louisiana, 460 U.S. 1081 , 103 S.Ct. 1768 , 76 L.Ed.2d 342 (1983). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Tabeling v. United States
green
1 sentence1990State v. Tonubbee, 420 So.2d 126 (La.1982), cert. den., Tonubbee v. Louisiana, 460 U.S. 1081 , 103 S.Ct. 1768 , 76 L.Ed.2d 342 (1983). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Burns
green
1 sentence1987See also State v. Cody, 446 So.2d 1278 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1984), wherein the court noted that the trial court expressly accepted that the purpose of the testimony was to show the mental state of the witness or the impression upon him rather than the truthfulness of the matter asserted; and State v. Burns, 504 So.2d 124 (La.App. 2nd Cir.), writ denied, 505 So.2d 1142 (La.1987), wherein the court noted that the state had offered testimony under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule but found that the contested evidence was actually nonhearsay testimony explaining the sequence of events l | 1 | 1987–1987 |
State v. Burns
green
1 sentence1987See also State v. Cody, 446 So.2d 1278 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1984), wherein the court noted that the trial court expressly accepted that the purpose of the testimony was to show the mental state of the witness or the impression upon him rather than the truthfulness of the matter asserted; and State v. Burns, 504 So.2d 124 (La.App. 2nd Cir.), writ denied, 505 So.2d 1142 (La.1987), wherein the court noted that the state had offered testimony under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule but found that the contested evidence was actually nonhearsay testimony explaining the sequence of events l | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.