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.
9 Louisiana opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2021 1 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. Narcissegreen1 sentence2011State v. Narcisse, 512 So.2d 565, 567-69 (La.App. 3 Cir.1987) (citing State v. Brown, 161 La. 704 , 109 So. 394 (1926)). . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pilchergreen2 sentences2011The supreme court has held that res gestae statements by a spouse are not excludable as part of the spousal privilege against testifying: “The declaration of a wife may be received as res gestae even where she would not be a competent witness against her husband.” State v. Pilcher, 158 La. 791 , 104 So. 717, 719 (1925). 1 Prohibitions against the introduction of other crimes and hearsay evidence do not apply to those crimes that were an integral or inseparable part (res gestae) of the crime for which the defendant is being prosecuted. 2011The supreme court has held that res gestae statements by a spouse are not excludable as part of the spousal privilege against testifying: “The declaration of a wife may be received as res gestae even where she would not be a competent witness against her husband.” State v. Pilcher, 158 La. 791 , 104 So. 717, 719 (1925). 1 Prohibitions against the introduction of other crimes and hearsay evidence do not apply to those crimes that were an integral or inseparable part (res gestae) of the crime for which the defendant is being prosecuted. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ohio v. Roberts
red
2 sentences2005The trial court allowed the wife's statement into evidence by relying on Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 , which held that the right to confrontation did not bar the admission of an unavailable witness statement against a criminal defendant, if the statement bore an adequate "indicia of reliability," either through a firmly rooted hearsay exception or other particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. 2005The trial court allowed the wife's statement into evidence by relying on Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 , which held that the right to confrontation did not bar the admission of an unavailable witness statement against a criminal defendant, if the statement bore an adequate "indicia of reliability," either through a firmly rooted hearsay exception or other particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Bennett
green
2 sentences1987State v. Bennett, 357 So.2d 1136 (La.1978). 1986LSA-R.S. 15:461 provides: "Competent witness defined; those not compelled to testify The competent witness in any criminal proceeding, in court or before a person having authority to receive evidence, shall be a person of proper understanding, but; (1) Private conversations between husband and wife shall be privileged. (2) Neither husband nor wife shall be compelled to be a witness on any trial upon an indictment, complaint or other criminal proceeding, against the other. (3) In the trial of all indictments, complaints and other proceedings against persons charged with the commission of crimes | 2 | 1986–1987 |
State v. Lilly
green
1 sentence2021The court stated, " Even if the defendant and his wife never intended for the conversations to be disclosed, 22 the fact that they were aware that a third party could monitor or record their conversation destroyed the confidential nature of the communication." Lilly, 111 So. 3d at 57 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences2011State v. Narcisse, 512 So.2d 565, 567-69 (La.App. 3 Cir.1987) (citing State v. Brown, 161 La. 704 , 109 So. 394 (1926)). . 2011State v. Narcisse, 512 So.2d 565, 567-69 (La.App. 3 Cir.1987) (citing State v. Brown, 161 La. 704 , 109 So. 394 (1926)). . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Crawford v. Washington
green
1 sentence2005Id. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Phillips v. Water Towing, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence1993This issue was recently addressed by a panel of this court in Phillips v. Water Towing, et al., 620 So.2d 1387 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1993). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Day
green
1 sentence1991State v. Day, 400 So.2d 622 (La.1981). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Perry
green
1 sentence1986State v. Jackson, supra; State v. Billiot, 421 So.2d 864 (La.1982); State v. Perry, supra. Moreover, in assignment of error No. 5 the defendant contends that the statements made to his wife violated the spousal privilege. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
State v. Billiot
green
1 sentence1986State v. Jackson, supra; State v. Billiot, 421 So.2d 864 (La.1982); State v. Perry, supra. Moreover, in assignment of error No. 5 the defendant contends that the statements made to his wife violated the spousal privilege. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
State v. Jackson
green
1 sentence1986State v. Jackson, supra; State v. Billiot, 421 So.2d 864 (La.1982); State v. Perry, supra. Moreover, in assignment of error No. 5 the defendant contends that the statements made to his wife violated the spousal privilege. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.