Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Mitchell, 779 So. 2d 698.

40 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Darren Bridges La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
On appeal, this Court stated: Addressing this issue, the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Mitchell, 2000-1399, p. 5 (La.2/21/01), listed “‘[s]tatements in argument to the effect that there is no refuting evidence’” as illustrative of a permissible indirect reference not intended to focus on a defendant’s failure to testify.
State of Louisiana Versus C. T. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2019
State v. Gray 235 So. 3d 1270 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Marlon Frank Thomas La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
State v. Thomas 217 So. 3d 651 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Monroe 198 So. 3d 259 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
4 Cir. 6/18/14) , -72 (emphasis added), this Court recently recognized that when the State indirectly references a defendant’s failure to testify, the intended effect of the comment on the jury must be determined, and the context of the statements are crucial: In State v. Mitchell, 2000-1399 (La.2/21/01), , the Louisiana Supreme Court held when the prosecutor makes an indirect reference to the defendant’s failure to take the stand and testify, a reviewing court must inquire into the remark’s int
State v. Smith 186 So. 3d 703 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
State v. Mitchell, 00-1399 (La.02/21/01), ; State v. Shed, 36,321 (La.
State v. Simms 143 So. 3d 1258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
In State v. Mitchell, 2000-1399, (La.2/21/01), , the Louisiana Supreme Court held when the prosecutor makes an indirect reference to the defendant’s failure to take the stand and testify, a reviewing court must inquire into the remark’s intended effect on the jury in order to distinguish indirect references to the defendant’s failure to testify (which are impermis
State v. Williams 137 So. 3d 832 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Mitchell, 00-1399, p. 5 (La.2/21/01), .
State v. Searls 106 So. 3d 1146 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
(citing State v. Mitchell, 00-1399 (La.2/21/01), ).
State v. Paul 90 So. 3d 1191 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Mitchell, 2000-1399 (La.02/21/01), .
State v. Robinson 79 So. 3d 1270 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. White, 36,935 (La.App.2d Cir.6/6/03), , writ denied, 2003-2616 (La.5/14/04), , State v. Mitchell, 2000-1399 (La.2/21/01), .
State of Louisiana v. Tracy Wayne Bowie La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
2/21/01), ), writ denied, 05-599 (La.
State v. Bowie 101 So. 3d 46 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
5 Cir. 12/28/04), (citing State v. Mitchell, 00-1399 (La.2/21/01), ), writ denied, 05-599 (La.6/3/05), .
State of Louisiana v. Paxton Jules Trahan La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
2/21/01), -02, the supreme court stated: La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Trahan 61 So. 3d 794 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
In its discussion of prosecutorial references to a defendant’s failure to testify in State v. Mitchell, 00-1399, pp. 4-5 (La.2/21/01), -02 , the supreme court stated: La.C.Cr.P.
State of Louisiana v. Jonathan Edward Boyer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
2/21/01), -02, the supreme court discussed La.Code Crim.P.
State v. Boyer 56 So. 3d 1119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
In State v. Mitchell, 00-1399, pp. 4-5 (La.2/21/01), -02 , the supreme court discussed La.Code Crim.P.
State v. Hines 52 So. 3d 1120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Mitchell, 2000-1399, p. 5 (La.2/21/01), .
State v. Johnson 52 So. 3d 110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Mitchell, 00-1399 (La.2/21/01), -02 .
State v. Robert 42 So. 3d 1059 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
In State v. Mitchell, 2000-1399 (La.2/21/01), , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: La.
State v. Thomas 36 So. 3d 1178 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
State v. Mitchell, 00- 1399 (La.2/21/01)
State of Louisiana v. Kendall Paul Davis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
2/21/01), -02, our supreme court discussed a mistrial based on the State referring to a defendant’s failure to testify at trial: La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Davis 36 So. 3d 351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
In State v. Mitchell, 00-1399, pp. 4-5 (La.2/21/01), -02 , our supreme court discussed a mistrial based on the State referring to a defendant’s failure to testify at trial: La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Woodfork 981 So. 2d 717 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
The Louisiana Supreme Court held in State v. Mitchell, 00-1399 (La.2/21/01), , that an indirect reference to the failure to testify that mandates the granting of a mistrial occurs where the focus is on the accused's failure to testify, such as when he is the only witness who can rebut the state's evidence.
State v. Williams 926 So. 2d 665 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
See, State v. Mitchell, 00-1399 (La.2/21/01), .
State v. Lai 902 So. 2d 550 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965) -1284 (La.1980); See also, State v. Mitchell, 00-1339 (La.2/21/01), .
State v. Packnett 892 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
State v. Mitchell, 00-1399 (La.2/21/01), .
State v. Bonner 895 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
State v. Mitchell, XXXX-XXXX (La.02/21/01), ; State v. Taylor, 37,356 (La.App.2d Cir.09/26/03), , writ denied, XXXX-XXXX (La.03/19/04), .
State v. Loston 874 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
In State v. Mitchell, 00-1399 (La.2/21/01), , the Louisiana Supreme Court recently reviewed the law relative to granting a mistrial as a consequence of a prosecutorial comment on a defendant's failure to testify at trial.
State v. Cowart 862 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
See also: State v. Mitchell, 00-p, p.4 (La.2/21/01) .
State v. Taylor 855 So. 2d 958 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
State v. Mitchell, 00-1399 (La.2/21/01), .
State v. Small 850 So. 2d 1019 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
art. 770(3) provides: Upon motion of a defendant, a mistrial shall be ordered when a remark or comment, made within the hearing of the jury by the judge, district attorney, or a court official, during the trial or in argument, refers directly or indirectly to: * * * (3) The failure of the defendant to testify in his own defense; * * * In State v. Mitchell, 00-1399 (La.2/21/01), , the supreme court stated the applicable law: La.C.Cr.P.
State v. White 850 So. 2d 751 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
In State v. Mitchell, 00-1399 (La.2/21/01), , the supreme court stated the applicable law: La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Shed 828 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
State v. Mitchell, 2000-13 (La.2/21/01)
State v. Shed 828 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
State v. Mitchell, 2000-13 (La.2/21/01)
State v. Harry 823 So. 2d 987 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Addressing this issue, the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Mitchell, XXXX-XXXX, p. 5 (La.2/21/01), , listed "`[s]tatements in argument to the effect that there is no refuting evidence'" as illustrative of a permissible indirect reference not intended to focus on a defendant's failure to testify.
State v. Mims 806 So. 2d 760 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Mitchell, 00-1399 (La.2/21/01), .
State v. Ballay 800 So. 2d 953 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Mitchell, 2000-13 (La.2/21/01); ; ().
State v. Wright 796 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
The supreme court addressed this issue in great detail in State v. Mitchell, 00-1399, p. 4 (La.2/21/01) , 701: La.C.Cr.P.