520 SO2D 738 - State v. Rousselle

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently November 2000

3 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1 *739IN RE: Rousselle, Teddy; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Number KA-3791; Parish of Plaquemines 25th Judicial District Court Div. “B” Number 80630

¶2Denied. The result is correct.

CALOGERO, J., concurs with reasons.LEMMON, J., would grant the writ.CALOGERO, Justice,

¶3concurring in the denial of the writ.

¶4The court of appeal concluded that the trial judge improperly excluded certain testimony from a defense witness, Joan McDonald, on the ground that the testimony sought to be elicited was hearsay. The court of appeal was of the view that the testimony was not hearsay and that the trial court’s ruling was therefore wrong, but it nonetheless affirmed defendant’s conviction upon a finding that the trial court’s erroneous exclusion of the evidence on hearsay grounds was harmless error. I agree with the trial court’s finding that the testimony in question was hearsay and was properly excluded. Therefore, I would deny the writ, but not for the reasons assigned by the court of appeal. In my view the out of court statements which defense counsel sought to introduce into evidence were hearsay because they were offered for the truth of the matter asserted therein.