If you only remember one point about evidence law in Louisiana, remember this: Louisiana evidence practice is organized under the Louisiana Code of Evidence. Relevance starts at La. Code Evid. arts. 401, 403; hearsay starts at La. Code Evid. arts. 801, 802. Procedure, examples, and the opinions below hang off Louisiana Code of Evidence. Authenticity is a separate fight under La. Code Evid. arts. 901, 902. Depositions at trial: La. Code Civ. Proc. arts. 1451–1463 govern civil depositions; art. 1457 addresses use at trial when witnesses are unavailable or for impeachment. Criminal practice follows La. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 718–719; deposition use at trial requires a Code of Evidence hearsay exception.
Hearsay: start with the definition
Most hearsay objections in Louisiana are won or lost on the definition, not on an exception. Under La. Code Evid. arts. 801, 802, hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Non-hearsay purposes — verbal acts, effect on the listener, notice, circumstantial evidence of state of mind, and impeachment — remain available when the proponent can articulate them without asking the jury to believe the declarant.
Layered hearsay (hearsay within hearsay) requires an exception or exclusion for each layer. Machine-generated data and non-assertive conduct sit outside the hearsay definition in FRE-aligned jurisdictions, but they still need authenticity and, often, expert or business-records foundations.
Louisiana hearsay opinions
State v. Hearold
State v. Hearold, 603 So. 2d 731 (1992)
…The principal issues in this case involve the admission of hearsay evidence and the effect of that admission on the sufficiency of the evidence of intent to distribute methamphetamine. Facts On October 6, 1988, narcotics officers, acting on a tip from a confidential informer, stopped a car driven by defendant and owned by William Costin, a passenger in the car. Defendant attem…
Practitioners open State v. Hearold when Louisiana hearsay turns on the distinction in this sentence: "The principal issues in this case involve the admission of hearsay evidence and the effect of that admission on the sufficiency of the evidence of intent to distribute methamphetamine." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
State v. Martin
State v. Martin, 356 So. 2d 1370 (1978)
…ion was sustained on the ground that the letter constituted hearsay. The general rule is that hearsay evidence is inadmissible, La.R.S. 15:434 and 15:463, but Louisiana has no statutory definition of hearsay. We have on occasion indicated that an out-of-court assertion by a testifying witness is not hearsay, although it does not appear that this notion was actually crucial to a…
Louisiana opinions such as State v. Martin are cited where hearsay is disputed. The court stated: "The general rule is that hearsay evidence is inadmissible, La.R.S. 15:434 and 15:463, but Louisiana has no statutory definition of hearsay." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
State v. Monroe
State v. Monroe, 345 So. 2d 1185 (1977)
…committed reversible error by allowing the introduction of hearsay evidence pertaining to a medical examination of the alleged victim by an assistant coroner who was not called as a witness at the trial. By assignment of error number six, defendant complains that the trial court overruled his objection to the testimony of the coroner in which he described the examination and r…
On hearsay, State v. Monroe speaks to the Louisiana dispute in this passage: "committed reversible error by allowing the introduction of hearsay evidence pertaining to a medical examination of the alleged victim by an assistant coroner who was not called as a witness at the trial. By assignment of error number six, defendant complains that the trial court" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
State v. Ford
State v. Ford, 336 So. 2d 817 (1976)
…ignment 2) and to the admission over objection of allegedly hearsay testimony (Assignment 6 and 7). Assignment 5, relating to the introduction of testimony taken at a preliminary examination, also deserves comment. Assignment 2 (Change of venue) The offense charged occurred in November, 1974. The victim, Gerald Summerville, was killed in a subsequent robbery of his business pla…
Louisiana opinions such as State v. Ford are cited where hearsay is disputed. The court stated: "Assignment 6 and 7). Assignment 5, relating to the introduction of testimony taken at a preliminary examination, also deserves comment. Assignment 2 (Change of venue) The offense charged occurred in November, 1974." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
State v. Arbuthnot
State v. Arbuthnot, 367 So. 2d 296 (1979)
…r, *298 who did not testify.[1] The improper elicitation of hearsay testimony as to Mrs. Silver's identification of Williams as the robber who went into the store is the basis of our reversal of his conviction. The excerpts of testimony in the record indicate that Arbuthnot, the co-defendant, was apparently identified by a bystander as he left the scene. He was arrested at the…
Practitioners open State v. Arbuthnot when Louisiana hearsay turns on the distinction in this sentence: "The improper elicitation of hearsay testimony as to Mrs. Silver's identification of Williams as the robber who went into the store is the basis of our reversal of his conviction." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
State v. Dupree
State v. Dupree, 377 So. 2d 328 (1979)
…r for the judge to receive in evidence, over his objection, hearsay statements of a co-conspirator not made in furtherance of the conspiracy or during its continuation. After reviewing the record and considering the parties' arguments, we conclude that the defendant's assignment of error has merit. Accordingly, we reverse defendant's four convictions for attempted murder and co…
On hearsay, State v. Dupree speaks to the Louisiana dispute in this passage: "After reviewing the record and considering the parties' arguments, we conclude that the defendant's assignment of error has merit." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Bailes v. US Fidelity & Guar. Co.
Bailes v. US Fidelity & Guar. Co., 512 So. 2d 633 (1987)
…hicle to Mr. Mann. Plaintiffs objected to this testimony as hearsay. The objection was ultimately sustained by the trial court and the testimony was not considered by the trial court in arriving at its decision. Appellants also attempted to introduce into evidence the answers of Mr. Mann to various pretrial interrogatories and requests for admissions of fact which had been prop…
On hearsay, Bailes v. US Fidelity & Guar. Co. speaks to the Louisiana dispute in this passage: "Mr. Mann. Plaintiffs objected to this testimony as hearsay. The objection was ultimately sustained by the trial court and the testimony was not considered by the trial court in arriving at its decision. Appellants also attempted to introduce into evidence the answers of Mr." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
State v. Doze
State v. Doze, 384 So. 2d 351 (1980)
…orting to recount what the victim told her, is inadmissible hearsay. It also contends that the defendant was prejudiced *353 by the trial court's error in admitting this testimony, because it tended to rebut the self-defense theory by providing a motive for a homicidal attack by Doze. The state counters by arguing that the portion of the testimony which concerned defendant's un…
Practitioners open State v. Doze when Louisiana hearsay turns on the distinction in this sentence: "It also contends that the defendant was prejudiced *353 by the trial court's error in admitting this testimony, because it tended to rebut the self-defense theory by providing a motive for a homicidal attack by Doze." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Walking through Louisiana facts
Use this walkthrough to see which Louisiana authority does the work at each step.
A lawyer in Louisiana wants to offer a medical record, a party email, and a statement the declarant made while believing death was imminent.
- Clear relevance and unfair prejudice under La. Code Evid. arts. 401, 403.
- If the email is the opposing party's, test La. Code Evid. art. 801(d)(2) before the hearsay definition in La. Code Evid. arts. 801, 802.
- For the medical record, lay the business-records foundation in La. Code Evid. art. 803(6) and the treatment purpose in La. Code Evid. art. 803(4).
- For the deathbed statement, meet La. Code Evid. art. 804(b)(2), then authenticate every exhibit under La. Code Evid. arts. 901, 902.
Louisiana keeps hearsay, character, and authenticity on different rules inside the Louisiana Code of Evidence. Winning one does not win the others.
Party admissions
Statements of an opposing party are among the most important routes around the hearsay bar. Louisiana treats them under La. Code Evid. art. 801(d)(2). Nothing about the statement need be against interest, contemporaneous, or based on personal knowledge — the theory is adversarial, not reliability-based. A party cannot complain that his own words are unreliable when offered against him.
Scope questions dominate practice: the party's own statement; adopted statements (including silence in circumstances where a reasonable person would deny); statements by authorized speakers; agent or employee statements on matters within the scope of the relationship; and, in criminal conspiracy cases, coconspirator statements during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. A defendant generally cannot introduce his own exculpatory out-of-court statement as a "party admission" against himself — the rule runs one way.
Louisiana party-admission opinions
In Re Quaid
In Re Quaid, 646 So. 2d 343 (1994)
…m a case at the client's request. Respondent objects to the admission of prior disciplinary sanctions on the grounds that his first two sanctions occurred more than ten years ago and thus are inadmissible under La.C.E. art. 609. This claim is without merit. First, the prior disciplinary sanctions have not been introduced to impeach the credibility of any witness and therefore a…
On party admissions, In Re Quaid speaks to the Louisiana dispute in this passage: "Respondent objects to the admission of prior disciplinary sanctions on the grounds that his first two sanctions occurred more than ten years ago and thus are inadmissible under La.C.E. art. 609. This claim is without merit." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
STATE of Louisiana v. Glen E. SEALS
STATE of Louisiana v. Glen E. SEALS, 83 So. 3d 285 (2011)
…a and the Due Process Clause. 9. The trial court’s repeated admission of out-of-court hearsay testimony, which the defense had no similar opportunity and motive to cross-examine, violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. 10. The State violated the Confrontation Clause and due process by its elicitation of hearsay testimony to prove robbery. 11. The admission of the testimon…
STATE of Louisiana v. Glen E. SEALS is worth reading on Louisiana party admissions because the court put the point in its own words: "Due Process Clause. 9. The trial court’s repeated admission of out-of-court hearsay testimony, which the defense had no similar opportunity and motive to cross-examine, violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. 10." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
State v. Rushing
State v. Rushing, 464 So. 2d 268 (1985)
…dence in support thereof was inadmissible. Any error in the admission of the lay witness opinion was harmless and did not influence the jury in returning the death sentence. The defendant also objects because witnesses were asked for their opinions on what was the appropriate sentence for Rushing. Both the State and the defense *276 elicited testimony on this point. The State a…
State v. Rushing is worth reading on Louisiana party admissions because the court put the point in its own words: "Any error in the admission of the lay witness opinion was harmless and did not influence the jury in returning the death sentence. The defendant also objects because witnesses were asked for their opinions on what was the appropriate sentence for Rushing." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
State v. Huff
State v. Huff, 660 So. 2d 529 (1995)
…. Joe Huff. As to Joe Huff, the first statement was a party admission. A statement offered against a party which is his own statement is a personal admission and is not hearsay by definition. LCE Art. 801D(2)(a). James's statement to Tracey describing what Joe did immediately after he did it is a present sense impression and is an exception to the hearsay rule. LCE Art. 803(1).…
Practitioners open State v. Huff when Louisiana party admissions turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Joe Huff. As to Joe Huff, the first statement was a party admission. A statement offered against a party which is his own statement is a personal admission and is not hearsay by definition. LCE Art. 801D(2)(a)." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
STATE of Louisiana v. William R. LILLY
STATE of Louisiana v. William R. LILLY, 111 So. 3d 45 (2012)
…his drinking behavior that he provided to a nurse upon his admission into jail. The nurse asked when he had last had a drink, how much he |isdrank, and whether he had experienced alcohol withdrawal. All of the defendant’s answers were inconsistent with his trial and hearing testimony that he had been drinking heavily every day for many weeks. The defendant explained that he ei…
Louisiana opinions such as STATE of Louisiana v. William R. LILLY are cited where party admissions is disputed. The court stated: "The nurse asked when he had last had a drink, how much he |isdrank, and whether he had experienced alcohol withdrawal. All of the defendant’s answers were inconsistent with his trial and hearing testimony that he had been drinking heavily every day for many weeks." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
State v. Carter
State v. Carter, 326 So. 2d 848 (1975)
…of a State's hearsay rules to create new exceptions for the admission of evidence against a defendant, will often raise questions of compatibility with the defendant's constitutional right to confrontation. Such questions require attention to the reasons for, and the basic scope of, the protections offered by the Confrontation Clause." 90 S.Ct. 1930, 1934. Because of the saluta…
Practitioners open State v. Carter when Louisiana party admissions turns on the distinction in this sentence: "State's hearsay rules to create new exceptions for the admission of evidence against a defendant, will often raise questions of compatibility with the defendant's constitutional right to confrontation." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
STATE of Louisiana v. Anthony D. FARRIER
STATE of Louisiana v. Anthony D. FARRIER, 162 So. 3d 1233 (2015)
…mony. |2Mr. Farrier next assigns as error the trial judge’s admission into evidence of recordings of three telephone conversations to which Mr. Farrier was a party, each of which was initiated by him while being detained awaiting trial. After considering each of Mr. Farrier’s objections at trial individually, we find that the trial judge did not abuse her considerable discretio…
Practitioners open STATE of Louisiana v. Anthony D. FARRIER when Louisiana party admissions turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Mr. Farrier next assigns as error the trial judge’s admission into evidence of recordings of three telephone conversations to which Mr. Farrier was a party, each of which was initiated by him while being detained awaiting trial. After considering each of Mr." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
State v. Washington
State v. Washington, 540 So. 2d 502 (1989)
…dence is, number one, a statement by a party. Two, it is an admission to the act which is alleged to have been a crime. He was playing cards with these people and he tells his best friend, you're not going to believe what happened. I went out to LSU and this white girl bought me a tank of gas and we went across the river and had sex and that's what you would tell your best frie…
On party admissions, State v. Washington speaks to the Louisiana dispute in this passage: "Two, it is an admission to the act which is alleged to have been a crime. He was playing cards with these people and he tells his best friend, you're not going to believe what happened." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Business records
The business-records exception under La. Code Evid. art. 803(6) is the everyday path for medical charts, employment files, bank statements, and maintenance logs. The foundation requires a record made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge; kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity; and made as a regular practice. A custodian or other qualified witness (or a qualifying certification where the jurisdiction allows it) lays the foundation. The opponent may still attack lack of trustworthiness when the source or method of preparation indicates unreliability — litigation-driven reports are the classic failure mode.
Do not confuse authenticity with the business-records exception. You still need to show the exhibit is what you claim it is; the hearsay exception then answers why the out-of-court assertions inside it may be considered for their truth.
Louisiana business-records opinions
State v. Vessell
State v. Vessell, 450 So. 2d 938 (1984)
…ial court erred in admitting documentary evidence under the business record exception to the hearsay rule. The initial investigation of Potter's death led Detectives LeBlanc and Cutrer to her apartment at 225 N. Cortez Street. Inside, the officers found musical equipment and a phone book listing the number of an Eden Reyes, the victim's former boyfriend.[2] Reys had been living…
State v. Vessell is worth reading on Louisiana business records because the court put the point in its own words: "The initial investigation of Potter's death led Detectives LeBlanc and Cutrer to her apartment at 225 N. Cortez Street. Inside, the officers found musical equipment and a phone book listing the number of an Eden Reyes, the victim's former boyfriend." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Cole Oil & Tire Co., Inc. v. Davis
Cole Oil & Tire Co., Inc. v. Davis, 567 So. 2d 122 (1990)
…eived" by Davis, and to testify about the "prior owner['s]" business records. Attempting to lay the proper foundation, Cole then explained that when he acquired the Cole Oil accounts receivable the sale documents showed that Davis then owed Boss Oil $8,021.85. The Boss Oil to Cole sale documents were not introduced into evidence. Apparently assuming that the Boss Oil invoices w…
Cole Oil & Tire Co., Inc. v. Davis is worth reading on Louisiana business records because the court put the point in its own words: "Davis, and to testify about the 'prior owner['s]' business records. Attempting to lay the proper foundation, Cole then explained that when he acquired the Cole Oil accounts receivable the sale documents showed that Davis then owed Boss Oil $8,021.85." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
State v. Perniciaro
State v. Perniciaro, 374 So. 2d 1244 (1979)
…district court erred in admitting into evidence, under the business records exception, a job description entered on her payroll record. We therefore reverse. The job description was hearsay because it was a statement made out of court offered for the truth of the matter asserted therein. It was inadmissible under the business records exception because the haphazardly kept job…
Practitioners open State v. Perniciaro when Louisiana business records turns on the distinction in this sentence: "We therefore reverse. The job description was hearsay because it was a statement made out of court offered for the truth of the matter asserted therein." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Ruddock v. JEFFERSON FIRE CIV. SERV. BD.
Ruddock v. JEFFERSON FIRE CIV. SERV. BD., 688 So. 2d 112 (1997)
…est results. These results were deemed admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. La. C.E. art. 803(6) provides: The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: (6) Records of regularly conducted business activity. A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, includ…
Ruddock v. JEFFERSON FIRE CIV. SERV. BD. is worth reading on Louisiana business records because the court put the point in its own words: "These results were deemed admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. La. C.E. art." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
State v. Marston
State v. Marston, 780 So. 2d 1058 (2001)
…La.Code Evid. art. 804(B)(5) required the party offering a business record in a criminal case to establish that the declarant was unavailable to testify. The statute incorporated a jurisprudential safeguard adopted by this Court to protect the accused's Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him. State v. Monroe, 345 So.2d 1185, 1189-90 (La.…
Practitioners open State v. Marston when Louisiana business records turns on the distinction in this sentence: "La.Code Evid. art. 804(B)(5) required the party offering a business record in a criminal case to establish that the declarant was unavailable to testify." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), NA v. Karen N. SANCHES
CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), NA v. Karen N. SANCHES, 2013 La. App. LEXIS 1196 (2013)
…d that the affiants were familiar with and had reviewed the business records for Ms. Sanches’ account and granted Capital One’s summary judgment on September 10, 2012. Thereafter, Ms. Sanches filed a Petition for Devolutive Appeal, which was granted by the second city court on September 25, 2012. The second city court issued a second judgment on September 28, 2012, pertaining t…
Louisiana opinions such as CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), NA v. Karen N. SANCHES are cited where business records is disputed. The court stated: "Ms. Sanches’ account and granted Capital One’s summary judgment on September 10, 2012. Thereafter, Ms. Sanches filed a Petition for Devolutive Appeal, which was granted by the second city court on September 25, 2012." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
State v. Gordy
State v. Gordy, 981 So. 2d 45 (2008)
…inadmissible hearsay evidence. The evidence at issue is the business records of Progressive Insurance Company and the White Settlement Police Department report, which was included in the insurance report. The business records were introduced into evidence in conjunction with the testimony of Carl David Bell, a fire and theft claims investigator for Progressive Insurance. The tr…
Louisiana opinions such as State v. Gordy are cited where business records is disputed. The court stated: "The evidence at issue is the business records of Progressive Insurance Company and the White Settlement Police Department report, which was included in the insurance report." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Dave WILLIAMS, Jacob D. Harrison and Norine Gibson v. NEW YORK FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY and Earl Lenard
…ed in the following paragraph of the application: Under the business records doctrine, which does not here require citation, the documentary evidence in support of the Third-Party Demand required no testimony nor stipulation. They were and are admissable by and of themselves. Further, those documents could also be classified as an admission against interest imposing liability o…
On business records, Dave WILLIAMS, Jacob D. Harrison and Norine Gibson v. NEW YORK FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY and Earl Lenard speaks to the Louisiana dispute in this passage: "Under the business records doctrine, which does not here require citation, the documentary evidence in support of the Third-Party Demand required no testimony nor stipulation. They were and are admissable by and of themselves." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Important hearsay exceptions that do not require unavailability
Three present-sense and mental-state exceptions carry most of the remaining traffic in Louisiana trial practice.
Excited utterance — La. Code Evid. art. 803(2). A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused. Timing is elastic; composure defeats the exception even minutes after the event, while visible distress can preserve it for hours.
Present sense impression — La. Code Evid. art. 803(1). A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it. Contemporaneity is strict — seconds and minutes, not hours — and excitement is not required.
Then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition — La. Code Evid. art. 803(3). Statements of then-existing state of mind (including intent and plan) come in; statements of memory or belief offered to prove the fact remembered generally do not. Intent-to-meet-another-person cases remain the hardest applications.
Declarant unavailable
When the declarant is unavailable under La. Code Evid. art. 804(a), Louisiana opens a second suite of exceptions. Unavailability typically includes privilege, refusal to testify despite court order, lack of memory, death or then-existing infirmity, and absence despite reasonable efforts to procure attendance. The proponent bears the burden of proving unavailability with specific facts — a bare assertion that the witness "could not be found" is not enough.
Former testimony under La. Code Evid. art. 804(b)(1) is the workhorse once unavailability is shown: testimony given as a witness at a trial, hearing, or lawful deposition, offered against a party who had an opportunity and similar motive to develop it by direct, cross, or redirect. Criminal confrontation analysis runs in parallel and is not satisfied merely because a hearsay exception applies.
Dying declarations
Dying declarations under La. Code Evid. art. 804(b)(2) remain a narrow but decisive exception in homicide and, in many jurisdictions, civil cases involving the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be impending death. The foundational showing is the declarant's belief that death was imminent — not that death in fact followed within any particular time — plus a statement concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be the impending death. Courts police coaching and narrative expansions aggressively.
Louisiana dying-declaration opinions
State v. Verrett
State v. Verrett, 419 So. 2d 455 (1982)
…ring that the victim's statements were admissible under the dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule. The trial court ruled that the statements were inadmissible and we granted the state's writ to review the correctness of the trial court's ruling. The mistrial was declared before testimony was elicited from any of the witnesses *456 who had been present when the victim…
On dying declaration, State v. Verrett speaks to the Louisiana dispute in this passage: "The trial court ruled that the statements were inadmissible and we granted the state's writ to review the correctness of the trial court's ruling." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
STATE v. AUGUSTUS
STATE v. AUGUSTUS, 129 La. 617 (1911)
…ion No. 1 alleges lack of foundation for the admission of a dying declaration. A dying declaration is one made under the sense of impending death. The test of the admissibility of a statement offered in evidence as a dying declaration is: Did the deceased, at the time of making the statement, believe in the reality of his impending death? Such belief being a mere mental operati…
On dying declaration, STATE v. AUGUSTUS speaks to the Louisiana dispute in this passage: "No. 1 alleges lack of foundation for the admission of a dying declaration. A dying declaration is one made under the sense of impending death." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
BIONTO v. ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO.
BIONTO v. ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO., 125 La. 147 (1910)
…objected, and' urged that it was not admissible either as a dying declaration or as part of the res gestse. The judge of the district court sustained the objection, but allowed the testimony to be taken down and to be brought up on appeal in order to place before us the testimony given, and thereby place us fully in possession of the testimony and the objection in order that we…
BIONTO v. ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. is worth reading on Louisiana dying declaration because the court put the point in its own words: "objected, and' urged that it was not admissible either as a dying declaration or as part of the res gestse. The judge of the district court sustained the objection, but allowed the testimony to be taken down and to be brought up on appeal in order to place before us the testimony" Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Garza v. Delta Tau Delta Fraternity Nat.
Garza v. Delta Tau Delta Fraternity Nat., 948 So. 2d 84 (2006)
…Cir. 5/6/05), 916 So.2d 185.[7] The majority considered the dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule found in La. C.E. art. 804(B)(2). Rejecting the defendants' reliance on the fact that there was no evidence that Courtney was injured at the time the note was written, the majority found Article 804(B)(2) provided no requirement that there be a wound or injury inflicted p…
On dying declaration, Garza v. Delta Tau Delta Fraternity Nat. speaks to the Louisiana dispute in this passage: "Cir. 5/6/05), 916 So.2d 185.[7] The majority considered the dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule found in La. C.E. art. 804(B)(2)." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
State of Louisiana v. Willie Carter
State of Louisiana v. Willie Carter, 107 La. 792 (1901)
…the action of the trial court in admitting in evidence the dying declaration of *793the deceased. Certain statements contained in this dying declaration are pointed out as being inadmissible in evidence because not relating to the immediate circumstances of the killing, and on account of these objectionable statements the dying declaration is objected to 'as a whole. This is t…
State of Louisiana v. Willie Carter is worth reading on Louisiana dying declaration because the court put the point in its own words: "Certain statements contained in this dying declaration are pointed out as being inadmissible in evidence because not relating to the immediate circumstances of the killing, and on account of these objectionable statements the dying declaration is objected to 'as a whole." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
STATE v. WILLIAMSON
STATE v. WILLIAMSON, 145 La. 9 (1919)
…given by a physician, preliminary to the introduction of a dying declaration of the victim of the homicide. The physician testified that he came from his residence to the scene of the kill* ing, a distance of about two blocks, in response to a telephone call; and, kneeling beside the wounded man, who was lying on the ground, asked, “Do you realize your condition?” To which the…
Louisiana opinions such as STATE v. WILLIAMSON are cited where dying declaration is disputed. The court stated: "The physician testified that he came from his residence to the scene of the kill* ing, a distance of about two blocks, in response to a telephone call; and, kneeling beside the wounded man, who was lying on the ground, asked, “Do you realize your condition?" That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
STATE v. CRUMP
STATE v. CRUMP, 116 La. 978 (1906)
…ther of the deceased, to state, in testifying regarding the dying declaration of his son, facts that were “self-serving declarations, inadmissible and hearsay.” The bill of exceptions states said objection: “The defendant through counsel objected to the first part of the statement of the witness.” The following is the' first part of the dying-declaration in question, as testifi…
STATE v. CRUMP is worth reading on Louisiana dying declaration because the court put the point in its own words: "The bill of exceptions states said objection: “The defendant through counsel objected to the first part of the statement of the witness." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
STATE v. HARRIS
STATE v. HARRIS, 112 La. 937 (1904)
…” and that he (the judge) “did not view this statement as a dying declaration, but just an expression of a desire on the part of the deceased that accused be not prosecuted, and for that reason, ruled it out as inadmissible.” “Indeed,” the judge goes on to say, “the witness made clear the fact that the deceased refused to declare how the thing happened, and simply expressed a d…
Louisiana opinions such as STATE v. HARRIS are cited where dying declaration is disputed. The court stated: "” and that he (the judge) “did not view this statement as a dying declaration, but just an expression of a desire on the part of the deceased that accused be not prosecuted, and for that reason, ruled it out as inadmissible.” “Indeed,” the judge goes on to say, “the witness made" That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Medical diagnosis or treatment statements
Statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment under La. Code Evid. art. 803(4) cover medical history, past or present symptoms, and their general cause when reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. The exception is not limited to treating physicians; statements to nurses, EMTs, and consulting clinicians can qualify when the diagnostic purpose is genuine. Fault and identity remain the usual battleground: "I was hit by a car" is often pertinent; "the light was green" usually is not; abuser identity in child-abuse and domestic-violence cases is heavily litigated.
Louisiana medical-statement opinions
State v. Ste. Marie
State v. Ste. Marie, 801 So. 2d 424 (2001)
…s: . . . . Statements for purposes of medical treatment and medical diagnosis in connection with treatment. Statements made for purposes of medical treatment and medical diagnosis in connection with treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as…
On medical diagnosis hearsay, State v. Ste. Marie speaks to the Louisiana dispute in this passage: "Statements for purposes of medical treatment and medical diagnosis in connection with treatment." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
State v. Merritt
State v. Merritt, 875 So. 2d 80 (2004)
…. (4) Statements made for purposes of medical treatment and medical diagnosis in connection with treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to treatment or diagnosis in connection with treatment. The Defendant argues that…
Louisiana opinions such as State v. Merritt are cited where medical diagnosis hearsay is disputed. The court stated: ". (4) Statements made for purposes of medical treatment and medical diagnosis in connection with treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as re" That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
State v. Brown
State v. Brown, 746 So. 2d 643 (1999)
… * (4) Statements for purposes of medical treatment and medical diagnosis in connection with treatment. Statements made for purposes of medical treatment and medical diagnosis in connection with treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as…
Louisiana opinions such as State v. Brown are cited where medical diagnosis hearsay is disputed. The court stated: "Statements for purposes of medical treatment and medical diagnosis in connection with treatment." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
State v. Jones
State v. Jones, 729 So. 2d 95 (1999)
…r as a statement made for purposes of medical treatment and medical diagnosis in connection with treatment, LSA-C.E. art. 803(4). The defendant now contends that the trial court erred in allowing this testimony. Hearsay is a statement made out of court offered as evidence in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted by the statement. LSA-C.E. art. 801. According to LSA-C.…
On medical diagnosis hearsay, State v. Jones speaks to the Louisiana dispute in this passage: "LSA-C.E. art. 803(4). The defendant now contends that the trial court erred in allowing this testimony. Hearsay is a statement made out of court offered as evidence in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted by the statement. LSA-C.E. art. 801. According to LSA-C." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
State v. Bennett
State v. Bennett, 591 So. 2d 783 (1991)
…n. ... (4) Statements for purposes of medical treatment and medical diagnosis in connection with treatment. Statements made for purposes of medical treatment and medical diagnosis in connection with treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as…
On medical diagnosis hearsay, State v. Bennett speaks to the Louisiana dispute in this passage: "Statements for purposes of medical treatment and medical diagnosis in connection with treatment." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
STATE of Louisiana v. Samuel L. WILLIAMS
STATE of Louisiana v. Samuel L. WILLIAMS, 115 So. 3d 600 (2013)
…here]] (4) Statements for purposes of medical treatment and medical diagnosis in connection with treatment. Statements made for purposes of medical treatment and medical diagnosis in connection with treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as…
On medical diagnosis hearsay, STATE of Louisiana v. Samuel L. WILLIAMS speaks to the Louisiana dispute in this passage: "Statements for purposes of medical treatment and medical diagnosis in connection with treatment." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
STATE of Louisiana In the Interest of M.Q.
STATE of Louisiana In the Interest of M.Q., 1999 La. LEXIS 205 (1999)
…3(4) (statements made for purposes of medical treatment and medical diagnosis excepted from hearsay rule); State v. Thom, 615 So.2d 355, 362-63 (La.App. 5th Cir.1993) (rape victim’s statements to an emergency room nurse about the details of the rape were admissible under art. 803(4) because the statements were provided for purposes of medical diagnosis and treatment). These sta…
Practitioners open STATE of Louisiana In the Interest of M.Q. when Louisiana medical diagnosis hearsay turns on the distinction in this sentence: "State v. Thom, 615 So.2d 355, 362-63 (La.App. 5th Cir.1993) (rape victim’s statements to an emergency room nurse about the details of the rape were admissible under art. 803(4) because the statements were provided for purposes of medical diagnosis and treatment)." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
JUDICIAL COMMITMENT of J.M.
JUDICIAL COMMITMENT of J.M., 1990 La. App. LEXIS 897 (1990)
…asserted. The testimony was allowed to support the doctor’s medical diagnosis and treatment. Following Dr. Osborn’s testimony, the defendant moved for a dismissal of the proceedings which was denied. The court then ordered judicial commitment of the defendant to the Department of Veterans Affairs. Defendant appeals. The first issue to be addressed is whether the trial court cor…
Louisiana opinions such as JUDICIAL COMMITMENT of J.M. are cited where medical diagnosis hearsay is disputed. The court stated: "The testimony was allowed to support the doctor’s medical diagnosis and treatment. Following Dr. Osborn’s testimony, the defendant moved for a dismissal of the proceedings which was denied." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Use of depositions at trial
La. Code Civ. Proc. arts. 1451–1463 govern civil depositions; art. 1457 addresses use at trial when witnesses are unavailable or for impeachment. Criminal practice follows La. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 718–719; deposition use at trial requires a Code of Evidence hearsay exception.
Deposition use is always a two-layer problem: procedural permission to read or play the deposition, plus a hearsay path (often former testimony, party admission, or impeachment). Counsel who satisfy the civil or criminal procedure rule but skip the evidence-rule foundation invite a sustained objection; counsel who have a hearsay exception but failed to preserve the deposition under the procedural rule face the same result. Video designations, counter-designations, and completeness objections should be teed up before the jury is seated.
Louisiana deposition / former-testimony opinions
State v. Kaufman
State v. Kaufman, 304 So. 2d 300 (1974)
…ntation Clause of the Sixth Amendment] was to prevent depositions[3] or ex parte affidavits being used against the prisoner in lieu of a personal examination and cross-examination of the witness in which the accused has an opportunity, not only of testing the recollection and sifting the conscience of the witness, but of compelling him to stand face to face with the…
On deposition / former testimony, State v. Kaufman speaks to the Louisiana dispute in this passage: "ntation Clause of the Sixth Amendment] was to prevent depositions[3] or ex parte affidavits being used against the prisoner in lieu of a personal examination and cross-examination of the witness in which the accused has an opportunity, not only of testing the recollec" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Galloway v. Baton Rouge General Hosp.
Galloway v. Baton Rouge General Hosp., 1992 La. LEXIS 2232 (1992)
…been negligent. The other panel member, Dr. Lohmann, gave a deposition, introduced at that trial, to the same effect. He stated that the Hospital had deviated from the requisite standard of care. Each of the doctors expressed their belief that Dr. Ioppolo had not been negligent. The trial in the suit against Dr. Ioppolo ended with a directed verdict in his favor. That was in Au…
Galloway v. Baton Rouge General Hosp. is worth reading on Louisiana deposition / former testimony because the court put the point in its own words: "The other panel member, Dr. Lohmann, gave a deposition, introduced at that trial, to the same effect. He stated that the Hospital had deviated from the requisite standard of care. Each of the doctors expressed their belief that Dr. Ioppolo had not been negligent." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Montgomery v. Breaux
Montgomery v. Breaux, 297 So. 2d 185 (1974)
…s rule in its C. C.P. Art. 1428 which deals with the use of depositions at trial. When the deposition is sought to be used in place of the witness' actual trial testimony, a showing of unavailability of the witness is required.[*] In the case at bar, no foundation for the use of the testimony from the possessory action was laid. There was no showing that the witnesses were unav…
On deposition / former testimony, Montgomery v. Breaux speaks to the Louisiana dispute in this passage: "C. C.P. Art. 1428 which deals with the use of depositions at trial. When the deposition is sought to be used in place of the witness' actual trial testimony, a showing of unavailability of the witness is required." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Caro v. Bradford White Corp.
Caro v. Bradford White Corp., 678 So. 2d 615 (1996)
…rtment which investigated the incident, and excerpts from a deposition given by Cynthia Gauthreaux (a person not a party to the present proceedings) in an unrelated case. The exception was submitted on memoranda and argument. In their opposition to the exception, plaintiffs submitted an affidavit by Mr. Caro, which recapitulated the allegations as to the date on which he learne…
Practitioners open Caro v. Bradford White Corp. when Louisiana deposition / former testimony turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Cynthia Gauthreaux (a person not a party to the present proceedings) in an unrelated case. The exception was submitted on memoranda and argument. In their opposition to the exception, plaintiffs submitted an affidavit by Mr." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
State v. Nall
State v. Nall, 439 So. 2d 420 (1983)
…is best stated by Wigmore: The general principle upon which deposition and former testimony should be resorted to is the simple principle of necessity i.e., the absence of any other means of utilizing the witness' knowledge. If his testimony given anew in court cannot be had, it will be lost entirely for the purposes of doing justice if it is not received in the form in which…
On deposition / former testimony, State v. Nall speaks to the Louisiana dispute in this passage: "Wigmore: The general principle upon which deposition and former testimony should be resorted to is the simple principle of necessity i.e., the absence of any other means of utilizing the witness' knowledge." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Cormier v. American Deposit Ins. Co.
Cormier v. American Deposit Ins. Co., 664 So. 2d 807 (1995)
…he motion should be granted if, and only if, the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show there is no genuine issue as to material fact and the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La.Code Civ.P. art. 966; Thornhill v. Black, Sivalls & Bryson Inc., 394 So.2d 1189 (La.1981). The interpretat…
Louisiana opinions such as Cormier v. American Deposit Ins. Co. are cited where deposition / former testimony is disputed. The court stated: "La.Code Civ.P. art. 966; Thornhill v. Black, Sivalls & Bryson Inc., 394 So.2d 1189 (La.1981)." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Rednour
Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Rednour, 1950 La. App. LEXIS 416 (1950)
…subrogation. Defendant objected to the admissibility of the depositions and the documents attached thereto, upon several grounds, viz., (1) that they seek to enlarge the recitals of plaintiff's petition, (2) that they are immaterial and irrelevant, (3) that the petition does not set forth with particularity the nature of the damages claimed, and (4) that the petition alleges th…
On deposition / former testimony, Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Rednour speaks to the Louisiana dispute in this passage: "Defendant objected to the admissibility of the depositions and the documents attached thereto, upon several grounds, viz." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Victorian v. American Deposit Ins. Co.
Victorian v. American Deposit Ins. Co., 764 So. 2d 1218 (2000)
…29. Summary judgment is properly granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La. C.C.P. art. 966. Appellate courts review summary judgments de novo under the same criteria that govern t…
Louisiana opinions such as Victorian v. American Deposit Ins. Co. are cited where deposition / former testimony is disputed. The court stated: "Summary judgment is properly granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La. C.C.P. art." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Authenticity: why it matters and how to prove it
Authenticity is not a hearsay doctrine and it is not optional. Under La. Code Evid. arts. 901, 902, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is. Self-authenticating categories — certified public records, newspapers, acknowledged documents, trade inscriptions, and (where adopted) certified domestic records of a regularly conducted activity — shorten the path, but most trial exhibits still need a sponsoring witness, distinctive characteristics, chain of custody, or process-or-system evidence.
Louisiana's civil-law courts require authentication under La. Code Evid. art. 901 before notarial acts, medical records, and oilfield documents reach the jury. Article 902 self-authentication applies to certified public records and acknowledged documents.
Why authenticity gets its own section in every Louisiana trial notebook:
- It is a condition precedent. An unauthenticated exhibit never reaches the relevance, hearsay, or privilege analysis in a useful way — the jury never properly considers it.
- Digital evidence multiplies the failure modes. Screenshots, social-media posts, text threads, and cloud downloads require hash values, account attribution, metadata, or a percipient witness who saw the content created or received.
- Chain of custody is authenticity by another name. Drugs, firearms, biological samples, and seized devices are excluded when the links from seizure to lab to courtroom are broken, even if a hearsay exception would otherwise apply to a lab report.
- Business-records shortcuts do not replace authentication. A custodian can explain record-keeping practices and still fail if nobody can say the particular PDF or printout is the record of this patient, this account, or this machine.
- Self-authentication is narrow. Counsel who wave a notarization or a letterhead and skip the rest of Rule 901-style analysis often lose when the document's contents are disputed.
Practical authentication checklist for Louisiana trials: identify the exhibit; choose a 901 method or a 902 category; line up the sponsoring witness or certificate; preserve chain-of-custody testimony for physical and digital items; and separate the authenticity objection from any hearsay objection so the court rules on each.
Louisiana authenticity opinions
State v. Kennerson
State v. Kennerson, 695 So. 2d 1367 (1997)
…Texas documents labeled S-2, S-7, and S-9 were not properly authenticated. At the habitual offender proceeding, defense counsel also objected to the introduction of S-8, for the same reasons that he objected to the aforementioned exhibits, but defense counsel did not include his objection to S-8 in his current argument. At the habitual offender hearing, the defendant objected t…
On authentication, State v. Kennerson speaks to the Louisiana dispute in this passage: "Texas documents labeled S-2, S-7, and S-9 were not properly authenticated." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Price v. Roy O. Martin Lumber Co.
Price v. Roy O. Martin Lumber Co., 915 So. 2d 816 (2005)
…s, over defendants' objections, where the exhibits were not authenticated and constituted inadmissible hearsay; (2) in according the mere allegations in plaintiffs' petition more weight than uncontradicted testimony and documentary evidence; and (3) in overruling defendants' venue exceptions based on a finding that plaintiffs' unsupported allegations "may" be sufficient to esta…
Price v. Roy O. Martin Lumber Co. is worth reading on Louisiana authentication because the court put the point in its own words: "s, over defendants' objections, where the exhibits were not authenticated and constituted inadmissible hearsay; (2) in according the mere allegations in plaintiffs' petition more weight than uncontradicted testimony and documentary evidence; and (3) in overruling defendants' venu" Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Arriola v. Orleans Parish School Bd.
Arriola v. Orleans Parish School Bd., 809 So. 2d 932 (2002)
…Cir.1993)(holding that in tenure hearings, "strict rules of authentication... do not apply" and even though the superintendent conceded that the copy of the movie "Child's Play" offered as evidence was not the same copy that the teacher showed in class, the School Board properly admitted the videotape copy when other witnesses identified the copy as being the same movie). Accor…
Arriola v. Orleans Parish School Bd. is worth reading on Louisiana authentication because the court put the point in its own words: "Cir.1993)(holding that in tenure hearings, 'strict rules of authentication..." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Catalanotto v. Associates Discount
Catalanotto v. Associates Discount, 207 So. 2d 180 (1968)
…ort his right to executory process by furnishing sufficient authenticated evidence of the indebtedness sued upon. Before appellant's petition for injunctive relief was heard, Associates dismissed its suit for executory process upon agreement with appellant whereby appellant paid the balance allegedly due with full reservation of appellant's right to sue for damages for the repu…
Practitioners open Catalanotto v. Associates Discount when Louisiana authentication turns on the distinction in this sentence: "ort his right to executory process by furnishing sufficient authenticated evidence of the indebtedness sued upon. Before appellant's petition for injunctive relief was heard, Associates dismissed its suit for executory process upon agreement with appellant whereby appellant paid" Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Emile CATALANOTTO v. ASSOCIATES DISCOUNT CORPORATION
Emile CATALANOTTO v. ASSOCIATES DISCOUNT CORPORATION, 252 La. 105 (1968)
…ue. Although the act in question purports on its face to be authenticated (signed by two witnesses and acknowledged by one of the *107witnesses before a notary public), the allegation that one of the witnesses did not in fact sign in the presence of the mortgagor, if accepted as true, destroys the authentic character of the chattel mortgage for the purposes of the exception of…
On authentication, Emile CATALANOTTO v. ASSOCIATES DISCOUNT CORPORATION speaks to the Louisiana dispute in this passage: "ue. Although the act in question purports on its face to be authenticated (signed by two witnesses and acknowledged by one of the *107witnesses before a notary public), the allegation that one of the witnesses did not in fact sign in the presence of the mortgagor, if accepted as" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
State v. Hayes
State v. Hayes, 561 So. 2d 184 (1990)
…lony offenses because the copy of the bill was not properly authenticated. According to the defendant, the authentication of the copy of the bill of information is deficient because the top half of the copy is taped to the bottom half, and only the top half of the copy bears the certification of the clerk of court. The exhibit here challenged by the defendant is a bill of infor…
On authentication, State v. Hayes speaks to the Louisiana dispute in this passage: "According to the defendant, the authentication of the copy of the bill of information is deficient because the top half of the copy is taped to the bottom half, and only the top half of the copy bears the certification of the clerk of court." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
LEFEVRE v. BONIQUET'S SYNDICS & AL.
LEFEVRE v. BONIQUET'S SYNDICS & AL., 3 Mart. 481 (1818)
…d by law ; which is effected by presenting copies, properly authenticated, of public acts, as judgments and notarial instruments. But, it is self-evident, that nothing could be more absurd than to require the exhibition of an authentic copy of an act under private signature-when, it is by no means clear that such a copy can, in any way, be obtained. To interpret the law on this…
Louisiana opinions such as LEFEVRE v. BONIQUET'S SYNDICS & AL. are cited where authentication is disputed. The court stated: "But, it is self-evident, that nothing could be more absurd than to require the exhibition of an authentic copy of an act under private signature-when, it is by no means clear that such a copy can, in any way, be obtained." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
STATE of Louisiana v. Robert IOVENITI
STATE of Louisiana v. Robert IOVENITI, 238 So. 3d 496 (2018)
…499• a two-page document, entitled "Affidavit of Pharmacist Authenticating Records of Prescription Medications He Dispensed," purporting to have been signed by Raul Acevedo, allegedly a pharmacist with Free-Town Drug Store in Belize City, Belize, and purporting to authenticate the Prescriptions (the "Affidavit");7 and • Defense Exhibit 2: a one-page document, undated, purportin…
Practitioners open STATE of Louisiana v. Robert IOVENITI when Louisiana authentication turns on the distinction in this sentence: "499• a two-page document, entitled 'Affidavit of Pharmacist Authenticating Records of Prescription Medications He Dispensed,' purporting to have been signed by Raul Acevedo, allegedly a pharmacist with Free-Town Drug Store in Belize City, Belize, and purporting to authenticate th" Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Practice checklist
- State the relevance theory in one sentence before naming an exception.
- Run the 403 / unfair-prejudice balance explicitly for other-acts and graphic exhibits.
- For character or other-acts evidence, identify the non-propensity purpose and request a limiting instruction on the record.
- Decide whether an out-of-court statement is hearsay for the purpose offered before hunting exceptions.
- Lay business-records foundations with time, knowledge, regular practice, and custodial qualifications — or a qualifying certification.
- Prove unavailability with specific facts before offering former testimony or dying declarations.
- Treat deposition use as procedure-plus-hearsay; designate and counter-designate early.
- Authenticate every exhibit under La. Code Evid. arts. 901, 902 (or the self-authentication path) before arguing hearsay.
- Preserve chain of custody for physical and digital evidence with named custodians.
- Search LawDiver for recent Louisiana appellate evidence opinions before mediation or motions in limine.
Contents
- General standards of admissibility
- Character evidence
- Hearsay: start with the definition
- Party admissions
- Business records
- Important hearsay exceptions that do not require unavailability
- Declarant unavailable
- Dying declarations
- Medical diagnosis or treatment statements
- Use of depositions at trial
- Authenticity: why it matters and how to prove it
- Practice checklist
- Frequently asked questions
General standards of admissibility
Louisiana starts every evidence dispute with relevance and unfair prejudice. Under La. Code Evid. arts. 401, 403, evidence is relevant when it has any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable, and relevant evidence is still excluded when its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time. Preliminary questions of admissibility are for the court; conditional relevance and limited-purpose instructions keep otherwise-usable proof from becoming a Trojan horse for propensity or truth-of-the-matter use.
Louisiana uses "articles" rather than "sections" and maintains unique privilege and witness-competency provisions. Dual federal diversity cases apply the FRE, not the Louisiana Code.
Practice tip: articulate the theory of relevance in one sentence before citing the exception. Lawyers who lead with "it's a business record" without explaining what fact the record proves often lose the 403 balance even when the hearsay foundation is clean.
Character evidence
Character evidence in Louisiana is governed by La. Code Evid. arts. 404, 405. The default rule is familiar: evidence of a person's character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait. The same body of law then carves out the classic exceptions — essential-element character, accused-opens-the-door reputation or opinion, and other-acts evidence offered for a non-propensity purpose such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake.
Other-acts notice, 403 balancing, and limiting instructions do most of the real work. In criminal cases, prosecutors who dump prior misconduct without a specific non-propensity theory invite reversal; defense counsel who open the door to good-character testimony without anticipating rebuttal create the very propensity inference the rules were designed to police.
Louisiana character-evidence opinions
State v. Sawyer
State v. Sawyer, 422 So. 2d 95 (1982)
…gravating and mitigating circumstances, the introduction of character evidence is governed by the rules of evidence, including the statutory rules set forth by R.S. 15:479-83. Of these, R.S. 15:481 and 483 are most pertinent here: § 481 "The state is permitted to introduce testimony of the bad character of the accused only in rebuttal of the evidence introduced by him to show g…
Louisiana opinions such as State v. Sawyer are cited where character evidence is disputed. The court stated: "gravating and mitigating circumstances, the introduction of character evidence is governed by the rules of evidence, including the statutory rules set forth by R.S. 15:479-83. Of these, R.S. 15:481 and 483 are most pertinent here: § 481 'The state is permitted to introduce testim" That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
State v. Jackson
State v. Jackson, 608 So. 2d 949 (1992)
…the sentencing phase of a trial ... the probative value of character evidence is extremely high, since the character and propensities of the defendant is the principal inquiry, and the unquestionably devastating prejudicial effect does not outweigh such high probative value. Id. at 722. Because of the high probative value of character evidence in the sentencing phase of a tria…
Practitioners open State v. Jackson when Louisiana character evidence turns on the distinction in this sentence: "the sentencing phase of a trial ... the probative value of character evidence is extremely high, since the character and propensities of the defendant is the principal inquiry, and the unquestionably devastating prejudicial effect does not outweigh such high probative value. Id." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
State v. Bernard
State v. Bernard, 608 So. 2d 966 (1992)
…s of evidence in capital sentencing hearings in the area of character evidence. State v. Sawyer, 422 So.2d 95 (La.1982). However, Article 905.2 also limits the scope of the hearing. [4] There was no evidence of this type involved in the Payne case. [5] Justice Scalia pointed out in dissent in Booth: It seems to me, howeverand, I think, to most of mankindthat the amount of har…
Practitioners open State v. Bernard when Louisiana character evidence turns on the distinction in this sentence: "State v. Sawyer, 422 So.2d 95 (La.1982). However, Article 905.2 also limits the scope of the hearing. [4] There was no evidence of this type involved in the Payne case." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
State v. Frederick
State v. Frederick, 340 So. 2d 1353 (1976)
…t's criminal disposition, then the evidence is inadmissible character evidence. Although it can be effectively argued that evidence of other offenses is inadmissible because it is irrelevant to any issue in the trial for the crime charged, it can also be argued that this character evidence is relevant to guilt generally, because, having committed this kind of crime before, the…
Practitioners open State v. Frederick when Louisiana character evidence turns on the distinction in this sentence: "t's criminal disposition, then the evidence is inadmissible character evidence. Although it can be effectively argued that evidence of other offenses is inadmissible because it is irrelevant to any issue in the trial for the crime charged, it can also be argued that this characte" Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
State v. Felder
State v. Felder, 809 So. 2d 360 (2001)
…ictim was "going for a weapon," so he shot him. ANALYSIS I. Character Evidence of the Victim In his first assignment of error, the defendant asserts the trial court erred in refusing to allow the defendant to introduce to the jury evidence of the victim's dangerous reputation. The defendant's case rested primarily on his assertion that he shot Robinson in self-defense. Defendan…
State v. Felder is worth reading on Louisiana character evidence because the court put the point in its own words: "ANALYSIS I. Character Evidence of the Victim In his first assignment of error, the defendant asserts the trial court erred in refusing to allow the defendant to introduce to the jury evidence of the victim's dangerous reputation." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
State v. Jordan
State v. Jordan, 1983 La. LEXIS 11897 (1983)
…n relevancy, documentary evidence, competency of witnesses, character evidence, impeaching and corroborative evidence.[1] Legitimate inquiry must include the character and propensities of the convicted defendant. No reported case questions the validity of the judge-sentencer's inquisitiveness of an offender's character. The character of the convicted offender is very much bound…
On character evidence, State v. Jordan speaks to the Louisiana dispute in this passage: "Legitimate inquiry must include the character and propensities of the convicted defendant. No reported case questions the validity of the judge-sentencer's inquisitiveness of an offender's character." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
State v. Woodhead
State v. Woodhead, 866 So. 2d 995 (2004)
…ns the admissibility of such evidence in pertinent part: A. Character evidence generally. Evidence of a person's character or a trait of his character, such as a moral quality, is not admissible for the purpose of proving that he acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except: . . . . (2) Character of victim. (a) Except as provided in Article 412, evidence of a…
On character evidence, State v. Woodhead speaks to the Louisiana dispute in this passage: "A. Character evidence generally. Evidence of a person's character or a trait of his character, such as a moral quality, is not admissible for the purpose of proving that he acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except: . . . . (2) Character of victim." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
State v. Harris
State v. Harris, 711 So. 2d 266 (1998)
…e victim's two ex-girlfriends2 and his ex-wife was improper character evidence. Defendant further contends that the combination of the "justification" testimony and the evidence of the victim's non-violent character, when combined, encouraged the jury to treat the defendant less sympathetically and afford her a diminished right to defend herself. Justification Testimony During…
Practitioners open State v. Harris when Louisiana character evidence turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Defendant further contends that the combination of the 'justification' testimony and the evidence of the victim's non-violent character, when combined, encouraged the jury to treat the defendant less sympathetically and afford her a diminished right to defend herself." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Frequently asked questions
What is the primary evidence source in Louisiana?
Louisiana applies the Louisiana Code of Evidence. Louisiana's Code of Evidence (1999) is FRE-influenced but operates within a civil-law tradition; articles use FRE-style numbering with Louisiana-specific definitions and privileges.
How do Louisiana courts decide relevance and unfair prejudice?
Under La. Code Evid. arts. 401, 403, evidence must make a fact of consequence more or less probable, and the court may exclude relevant evidence when unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time substantially outweighs its probative value.
Are party admissions hearsay in Louisiana?
Party-opponent statements under La. Code Evid. art. 801(d)(2) are generally excluded from the hearsay ban (or treated as an exception, depending on local drafting). They may be offered against the party who made or adopted them without showing unavailability.
What foundation is required for business records?
Under La. Code Evid. art. 803(6), show a record made at or near the time from someone with knowledge, kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity, as a regular practice, through a custodian, qualified witness, or allowed certification — subject to trustworthiness attack.
When can I use a deposition at trial in Louisiana?
La. Code Civ. Proc. arts. 1451–1463 govern civil depositions; art. 1457 addresses use at trial when witnesses are unavailable or for impeachment. Criminal practice follows La. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 718–719; deposition use at trial requires a Code of Evidence hearsay exception.
Why is authenticity separate from hearsay?
Authenticity asks whether the item is what you claim it is; hearsay asks whether out-of-court assertions inside it may be used for their truth. You can lose on either ground independently. Louisiana authenticity practice starts with La. Code Evid. arts. 901, 902.
Where do dying declarations and medical statements fit?
Dying declarations under La. Code Evid. art. 804(b)(2) require belief in impending death and concern the cause or circumstances of that believed death. Medical statements under La. Code Evid. art. 803(4) require a genuine diagnostic or treatment purpose and reasonable pertinence to care.