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.
7 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2010 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. Johnsongreen2 sentences2010The court in Johnson found the State had indirectly referred to the defendant’s failure to take the stand in violation of La.C.Cr.P. art. 770(8) because, “the only person who could have contradicted the testimony of [the witnesses who said the defendant told them he committed the crimes] about what the defendant told them was the defendant himself.” Johnson, 541 So.2d at 823 . 2004In State v. Johnson, 541 So.2d 818 (La.1989), the prosecutor made a more general comment that "nobody" came forward and took the stand for the defense. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Monroegreen2 sentences1977"In State v. Monroe, 205 La. 285 , 17 So.2d 331, 332 (1944), we noted: `Rebutting evidence is that which is offered to explain, repel, counteract, or disprove facts given in evidence by the adverse party.' (Italics [theirs].) Again, in State v. Smith, 120 La. 530, 532 , 45 So. 415 (1908), we noted that rebuttal evidence is `evidence which has become relevant or important only as an effect of some evidence introduced by the other side.'" [Citations omitted.] Further, we recognized the following situation in our second footnote: "Of course, a confession or an inculpatory statement may be indepen 1977"In State v. Monroe, 205 La. 285 , 17 So.2d 331, 332 (1944), we noted: `Rebutting evidence is that which is offered to explain, repel, counteract, or disprove facts given in evidence by the adverse party.' (Italics [theirs].) Again, in State v. Smith, 120 La. 530, 532 , 45 So. 415 (1908), we noted that rebuttal evidence is `evidence which has become relevant or important only as an effect of some evidence introduced by the other side.'" [Citations omitted.] Further, we recognized the following situation in our second footnote: "Of course, a confession or an inculpatory statement may be indepen | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sneedgreen1 sentence1976If it fails to do so a confession or inculpatory statement shall not be admissible in evidence." In State v. Sneed, 316 So.2d 372, 375-77 (La.1975), we set forth the purpose and intent of this statutorily-required notice, mandated in the interests of a fair trial procedure. [2] In reversing in State v. Smith, 120 La. 530, 532 , 45 So. 415 (1908), we noted also that "since nothing could be more relevant in a criminal case than the confession of the accused, there can be no doubt that such confession must either be produced as part of the evidence in chief or not at all." Of course, a confession | 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. Scott
green
2 sentences1977State v. Scott, 320 So.2d 538 (La.1975)." This Court concludes that this latter rule governs the admissibility of the inculpatory statement in this case. 1976State v. Scott, 320 So.2d 538 (La.1975). | 2 | 1976–1977 |
State v. Smith
neutral
2 sentences1977"In State v. Monroe, 205 La. 285 , 17 So.2d 331, 332 (1944), we noted: `Rebutting evidence is that which is offered to explain, repel, counteract, or disprove facts given in evidence by the adverse party.' (Italics [theirs].) Again, in State v. Smith, 120 La. 530, 532 , 45 So. 415 (1908), we noted that rebuttal evidence is `evidence which has become relevant or important only as an effect of some evidence introduced by the other side.'" [Citations omitted.] Further, we recognized the following situation in our second footnote: "Of course, a confession or an inculpatory statement may be indepen 1977"In State v. Monroe, 205 La. 285 , 17 So.2d 331, 332 (1944), we noted: `Rebutting evidence is that which is offered to explain, repel, counteract, or disprove facts given in evidence by the adverse party.' (Italics [theirs].) Again, in State v. Smith, 120 La. 530, 532 , 45 So. 415 (1908), we noted that rebuttal evidence is `evidence which has become relevant or important only as an effect of some evidence introduced by the other side.'" [Citations omitted.] Further, we recognized the following situation in our second footnote: "Of course, a confession or an inculpatory statement may be indepen | 2 | 1976–1977 |
State v. Berry
green
1 sentence1990In State v. Berry, 324 So.2d 822 (La.1976), the defendant attempted, over the state's objection, to require a witness to take the stand and claim the privilege against self incrimination in front of the jury. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Diliberto
green
1 sentence1980Similarly, in State v. Diliberto, 362 So.2d 566 (La.1978), this Court, citing McCray, supra, held that “when the issue is not guilt or innocence, but instead the probable cause for an arrest or a search, police officers need not invariably be required to disclose an informant’s identity, if the trial judge is convinced, by evidence submitted in open court and subject to cross-examination, that the officers did rely in good faith upon credible information supplied by a confidential informant.” In the case at bar, the affiant was called to the stand at the hearing on the motion to suppress and w | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.