Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Bennett

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided November 8, 2000No. 00 KA 0282Published

1Concurrence

| FITZSIMMONS, Judge,

concurring in part with reasons.

I must concur in the result reached by the majority on the issue of the propriety of the trial court’s ruling denying admissibility of a recorded statement by defendant.

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 801(D)(1) provides that a prior statement of a witness is not hearsay if:

[t]he declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is: ... (b) [consistent with his testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against him of recent fabrication…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. State v. GibsonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1980
  3. State v. MiltoLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1999

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API