Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Frank, 957 So. 2d 724.

13 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Dale Dwayne Craig La. 2025
    5/22/07); (noting the deference given to the “good sensibility and fairmindedness of juries”).
  • State Of Louisiana v. Antoinette Frank La. 2025
  • State Of Louisiana v. Darrell T. Brown La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
  • State v. Handy 226 So. 3d 1182 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
  • State v. Young 216 So. 3d 236 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
  • State of Louisiana v. Jeffrey Clark 220 So. 3d 583 La. 2016
    5/22/07), (citing State v. Legrand, 02-1462, p. 16 (La.
  • State v. Cole 182 So. 3d 1192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    law applicable to the case.” State Frank, 99-553 (La.5/22/07), .
  • State v. Roe 151 So. 3d 838 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    See State v. Frank, 99-0553, p. 6 (La.5/22/07), ("In considering this issue, we noted that in State v. Touchet, 93-2839 (La.9/6/94), , this court addressed the specific issue of the showing an indigent needs to make to obtain state-funded expert assistance as follows:.
  • State of Louisiana v. Wardell Christopher Williams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
  • State v. Williams 124 So. 3d 1236 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    State v. Frank, 99-553 (La.5/22/07), .
  • State v. Green 84 So. 3d 573 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    State v. Frank, 99-0553, p. 30 (La.5/22/07), ; State v. Ricard, 98-2278, p. 4 (La.App.
  • State v. Sparks 68 So. 3d 435 La. 2011
    3278 , 176 L.Ed.2d 1184 (2010); State v. Frank, 99-0553, p. 2 (La.5/22/07) (defendant robbed restaurant where off-duty police officer and others were killed); State v. Brumfield, 96-2667, p. 19 (La.10/20/98), (defendant shot and killed off-duty police officer escorting a store manager on way |aito make bank deposit), cert.
  • State v. Veals 977 So. 2d 1030 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
    In State v. Frank, 99-0553, p. 30 (La.5/22/07), (citations omitted), the Louisiana Supreme Court explained: [T]his court will not reverse a conviction or sentence on the ground of improper closing argument unless it is thoroughly convinced that the remarks influenced the jury and contributed to the verdict.