Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Pinion, 968 So. 2d 131.

57 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Leonard James Miller La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
10/26/07), the supreme court stated: This Court has never articulated a per se rule either requiring the recording of bench conferences or exempting them from the scope of La.C.Cr.P.
State of Louisiana v. Jose M. Sagastume La. 2023
10/26/07), (per curiam), (La.
State of Louisiana Versus Gilbert J. Burciaga La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
10/26/07), (per curiam), the supreme court relied upon a portion of La.
State of Louisiana v. Allen Joseph Fontenot La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
10/26/07), (per curiam), the supreme court stated: Although the court of appeal faulted counsel for not making a general objection on the record to the composition of the jury, an objection that counsel had been forced to accept an obnoxious juror as the result of the trial court’s erroneous
State of Louisiana v. Jewel Demon Humphrey La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
10/26/07), (per curiam), for the following rule: “In jury selection, counsel satisfies the requirements of Louisiana’s contemporaneous objection rule by stating his grounds for a cause challenge and then by removing the juror with one of his remaining peremptory challenges when the court declines to excuse the juror for
State of Louisiana Versus Jose M. Sagastume La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
10/26/07), (per curiam);3 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Eddie Lee O'brien, II La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
10/26/07), (emphasis in original), noting: In jury selection, counsel satisfies the requirements of Louisiana’s contemporaneous objection rule by stating his grounds for a cause challenge and then by removing the juror with one of his remaining peremptory challenges when the court declines to excus
State of Louisiana v. Erick Gail Gragg La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
State of Louisiana v. Nancy Rogers A/K/A Nancy Lynn Rogers La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
State Of Louisiana v. Michael Halford La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
10/ 26/ 07), the Louisiana Supreme court stated: " In jury selection, counsel satisfies the requirements of Louisiana' s contemporaneous objection rule by stating his grounds for a cause challenge and then by removing the juror with one of his remaining peremptory challenges when the court declines t
State of Louisiana v. Jamal Christopher Lacon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 843 requires the trial court to “record all of the proceedings, including the examination of prospective jurors, the testimony of witnesses, statements, rulings, orders, and charges by the court, and objections, questions, statements, and arguments of counsel.” In State v. Pinion, 06-2346, pp. 7-8 (La.10/26/07), -35, the supreme court concluded that “the failure to record bench conferences will ordinarily not affect the direct review process when the
State of Louisiana v. Prince Record La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
10/26/07), noting, “In jury selection, counsel satisfies the requirements of Louisiana’s contemporaneous objection rule by stating his grounds for a cause challenge and then by removing the juror with one of his remaining peremptory challenges when the court declines to excuse the juror for cause.” Queen, 237 So.3d at 563.
State v. Record 266 So. 3d 592 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
10/26/07), , 136, noting, "In jury selection, counsel satisfies the requirements of Louisiana's contemporaneous objection rule by stating his grounds for a cause challenge and then by removing the juror with one of his remaining peremptory challenges when the court declines to excuse the juror for cause."
State v. Handy 259 So. 3d 448 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
10/26/07), , a case in which the record contained neither a transcript of the bench conferences nor any documentation showing which jurors were challenged for cause by the defense or stricken by the defense with peremptory challenges.
State v. Aguillard 254 So. 3d 685 La. 2018
State v. Queen 237 So. 3d 547 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
10/26/07), ] court stated: Although the court of appeal faulted counsel for not making a general objection on the record to the composition of the jury, an objection that counsel had been forced to accept an obnoxious juror as the result of the trial court's erroneous ruling on one or more cause challenges has not been an aspect
State of Louisiana v. Nathaniel Climes Thibeaux AKA Nathaniel Thibeaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
10/26/07), -35, our supreme court stated the following regarding unrecorded bench conferences: This Court has never articulated a per se rule either requiring the recording of bench conferences or exempting them from the scope of La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Thibeaux 229 So. 3d 967 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
10/26/07), -35 , our supreme court stated the following regarding unrecorded bench conferences: This Court has never articulated a.per se rule either requiring the recording ,of bench conferences: or.
State v. Handy 226 So. 3d 1182 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
10/26/07), , the record contained neither a transcript of the bench conferences nor any documentation showing which jurors were challenged for cause by the defense or stricken by the defense with peremptory challenges.
State v. Jones 220 So. 3d 128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
10/26/07), , the record contained neither a transcript of the bench conferences nor any documentation showing which jurors were challenged for cause by the defense or stricken by the defense with peremptory challenges.
State v. Savage 218 So. 3d 714 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
10/26/07), (per curiam ).
STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS READO NARGO A/K/A RENALDO NARGO La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
10/26/07), -35, the supreme court concluded that “the failure to record bench conferences will ordinarily not affect the direct review process when the record suggests that the unrecorded bench conferences had no discernible impact on the proceedings and did not result in any specific prejudice to the defendant.”
State of Louisiana v. Odeal Pippins Lirette La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
10/26/07), -35 (citation omitted), the supreme court held: The Court has instead conducted a case-specific inquiry to determine whether the failure to record the conferences results in actual prejudice to the defendant’s appeal.
State v. Nargo 193 So. 3d 1263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
the proceedings, including the examination of prospective jurors, the testimony of witnesses, statements, rulings, orders, and charges, by the court, and objections, questions, statements, and arguments of counsel.” - In State v. Pinion, 06-2346, pp. 7-8 (La.10/26/07), -35 , the supreme court concluded that “the failure *1272 to record bench conferences will ordinarily not affect the direct review process when the record suggests that the unrecorded bench conferences had no discernible impact on
State v. Lirette 195 So. 3d 644 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
(La.1983), the supreme court held that argument of counsel that is missing from the transcript “is immaterial to an adequate review of the trial court’s ruling.” In State v. Pinion, 06-2346, pp. 7-8 (La.10/26/07), -35 (citation omitted), the supreme court held: *654 The Court has instead conducted a case-specific inquiry to determine whether the failure to record the conferences results in actual prejudice to the defendant’s appeal.
State v. Wells 191 So. 3d 1127 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
See State v. Pinion, 06-2346, pp. 7-8 (La.10/26/07), (“[T]he failure to record bench conferences will ordinarily not affect the direct review process when the record suggests that the unrecorded bench conferences had no discernible impact on the proceedings and did *1149 not result in any specific prejudice to the defendant.”) (citing cases).
State ex rel. Davis v. State 182 So. 3d 32 La. 2015
See State v. Pinion, 06-2346 (La.10/26/07), .
State v. Thomas 171 So. 3d 959 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Pinion, 06-2346, p. 3, 10-11 (La.10/26/07), , 132 and 136, the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the defendant’s conviction for second-decree murder where many State and defense challenges “became lost in a haze of ‘inaudible’ responses,” with the court concluding: In this particular instance, by operation of art. 795(B)(2) [requiring that peremptory challenges
State in the Interest of J.C.R. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
State ex rel. J.C.R. 157 So. 3d 1284 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Pinion, 06-2346, pp. 9-10 (La.10/26/07), .
State v. Porter 151 So. 3d 871 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
The Louisiana |; ¡¡Supreme Court addressed this argument in State v. Pinion, 06-2346, p. 10 (La.10/26/07), , and held, In jury selection, counsel satisfies the requirements of Louisiana’s contemporaneous objection rule by stating his grounds for a cause challenge and then by removing the juror with one of his remaining peremptory challenges when the court declines to excuse the juror for cause.
State v. Mills 153 So. 3d 481 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
10/26/07), (per curiam) is misplaced.
State of Louisiana v. Jody D. Hamilton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
10/26/07), ] but as in Deruise, the record contains detailed jury sheets that indicate the peremptory strikes for each party as well as those jurors who were excused for cause.
State v. Hamilton 127 So. 3d 76 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
The fourth circuit ruled as follows: Here, unlike in [State v. ]Pinion[, 06-2346 (La.10/26/07), ,] but as in Demise, the record contains detailed jury sheets that indicate the peremptory strikes for each party as well as those jurors who were excused for cause.
State of Louisiana v. Demarcus W. Law La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
10/26/07), -36 (emphasis added).
State v. Law 110 So. 3d 1271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Pinion, 06-2346, pp. 7-10 (La.10/26/07), -36 (emphasis added).
State of Louisiana v. Jody D. Hamilton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
10/26/07), it is the responsibility of the trial court to insure an adequate recording of the proceedings.
State v. Hamilton 103 So. 3d 705 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Pinion, 06-2346 (La.10/26/07), .
State of Louisiana v. Terrance L. Sinegal La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Sinegal 97 So. 3d 649 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
|anIn support of his argument, Defendant refers to State v. Pinion, 06-2346 (La.10/26/07), .
State of Louisiana v. L. W. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
10/26/07), wherein the questioning of the jury panels by the State, the defendant, and trial court were completely recorded and transcribed.
State v. Andrews 61 So. 3d 121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Pinion, 06-2846, p. 9 (La.10/26/07), .
State of Louisiana v. David G. Sarpy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. Sarpy 52 So. 3d 1032 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
art. 841.” State v. Pinion, 06-2346, p. 9 (La.10/26/07), .
State v. Nelson 39 So. 3d 658 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
In State v. Pinion, 06-2346, p. 10 (La.10/26/07), (per curiam), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that in jury selection, counsel satisfies the requirements of Louisiana’s contemporaneous objection rule by stating his grounds for a cause challenge and then by removing the juror with one of his remaining peremptory challenges when the court declines to excuse the
State v. Anderson 28 So. 3d 324 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
In State v. Pinion, 06-2346, p. 10 (La.10/26/07), (per curiam), the Court relied on the above-emphasized portion of La.
State of Louisiana v. Darian Spears La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
10/26/07), in which the supreme court reversed the defendant’s conviction.
State v. Spears 8 So. 3d 119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Defendant cites State v. Pinion, 06-2346 (La.10/26/07), , in which the supreme court reversed the defendant’s conviction.
State of Louisiana v. Henry Bryan Lowe La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. Lowe 999 So. 2d 194 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
In support of his arguments, the Defendant cites State v. Pinion, 06-2346 (La.10/26/07), .