Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Lyles, 858 So. 2d 35.

45 citing documents.

State of Louisiana Versus Donald Warden La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2025
App. 5 Cir. 9/16/03), (La.
State of Louisiana Versus Raymond H Kimble III La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana Versus Adam Littleton La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2019
App. 5 Cir. 9/16/03), (quoting Mesarosh v. United States, 352 U.S. 1, 9, 77 S.Ct.
State of Louisiana v. Anthony Scott Tubbs La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
State of Louisiana v. Manuel Dukes La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2019
State of Louisiana v. Joshua David Evans La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
App. 5 Cir. 9/16/03), –49, the defendant was convicted of two counts of indecent behavior with a juvenile.
State v. Johnson 266 So. 3d 969 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
App. 5 Cir. 9/16/03), , 46 ("an improper reference to other crimes is subject to harmless error review ...
State v. Clark 259 So. 3d 1178 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
App. 5 Cir. 9/16/03), , the court found *1188 no error in permitting the juvenile victims to remain in the courtroom during the playing of their videotaped interviews.
State of Louisiana v. John Drummer, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
5 Cir. 9/16/03), for the proposition that: [N]ewly discovered evidence affecting only a witness’ credibility “ordinarily will not support a motion for a new trial, because new evidence which is ‘merely cumulative or impeaching’ is not, according to the often-repeated statement of the court, an adequate
State v. Drummer 245 So. 3d 93 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
5 Cir. 9/16/03), , 52, for the proposition that: [N]ewly discovered evidence affecting only a witness' credibility "ordinarily will not support a motion for a new trial, because new evidence which is 'merely cumulative or impeaching' is not, according to the often-repeated statement of the court, an adequate basis for the grant of a n
State v. Doucet 237 So. 3d 598 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
App. 5 Cir. 9/16/03), , 48-49, the defendant was convicted of two counts of indecent behavior with a juvenile.
State v. Shokr 212 So. 3d 1212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
5 Cir. 9/16/03) ; , the defendant’s action of taking the victim’s hand and placing it on his private then kissing the victim and putting his tongue in her mouth was sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction for indecent behavior with a juvenile; (La.
State v. Butler 171 So. 3d 1283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Nelson 169 So. 3d 493 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Harrell 138 So. 3d 721 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Distinguished State v. Davis 131 So. 3d 1002 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
5 Cir. 9/16/03) ; , to be distinguishable from the present case.
State v. Jones 119 So. 3d 250 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Brooks 103 So. 3d 608 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Lirette 102 So. 3d 801 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
5 Cir. 9/16/03), ; State v. Mickens, 31,737, pp. 9-10 (La.App.
State v. Massey 97 So. 3d 13 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Pierce 80 So. 3d 1267 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Jacobs 67 So. 3d 535 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Bazley 60 So. 3d 7 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
5 Cir. 9/16/03), , quoting Mesarosh v. United States, 352 U.S. 1, 9 , 77 S.Ct.
State v. Summers 52 So. 3d 951 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Anderson 38 So. 3d 953 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Nelson 39 So. 3d 658 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
5 Cir. 9/16/03), , 52: Newly discovered evidence affecting only a witness’ credibility “ordinarily will not support a motion for a new trial, because new evidence which is ‘merely cumulative or impeaching’ is not, according to the often-repeated statement of the courts, an adequate basis for the grant of a new trial.” (quoting Mesaros
State v. Ross 28 So. 3d 475 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Schaller 15 So. 3d 1046 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Butler 15 So. 3d 1091 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
5 Cir. 9/16/03) , , 45 31 .
State v. Caffrey 15 So. 3d 198 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Woods 4 So. 3d 248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. McFarland 960 So. 2d 1132 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
State v. Delagardelle 957 So. 2d 825 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
State v. Mazique 951 So. 2d 1182 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
State v. Blume 939 So. 2d 472 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
State v. Davis 924 So. 2d 1096 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
State v. Hooker 921 So. 2d 1066 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
5th Cir.9/16/03), , 50 that: The denial of a defendant's motion for new trial, based on La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Morris 917 So. 2d 633 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
5 Cir. 9/16/03) , , 50 stated in pertinent part (citations omitted): The denial of a defendant's motion for new trial, based on LSA-C.Cr.P.
State v. McGinnis 917 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
App. 5 Cir. 9/16/03), ; State v. Johnson, 2001-2334 (La.App.
State v. Gardner 907 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
5 Cir. 9/16/03) , , 50 stated in pertinent part (citations omitted): The denial of a defendant's motion for new trial, based on LSA-C.Cr.P.
State v. Burks 905 So. 2d 394 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Condley 904 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
5 Cir. 9/16/03) , , 50 stated in pertinent part (citations omitted): The denial of a defendant's motion for new trial, based on LSA-C.Cr.P.
State v. Mills 900 So. 2d 953 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Colbert 889 So. 2d 1128 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
State v. Simmons 875 So. 2d 1018 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004