Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Clark, 828 So. 2d 1173.

23 citing documents.

State v. Lambert 186 So. 3d 728 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
4 Cir. 9/25/02), ], State v. Ricard, 98-2278, 99-0424 (La.
Criticized State v. King 186 So. 3d 264 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Simonson 163 So. 3d 37 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
4 Cir. 9/25/02), (citing State v. Williams, 96-1023, p. 15 (La.1/21/98), ; State v. Casey, 99-0023, p. 17 (La.1/26/00), ).
State v. Berniard 163 So. 3d 71 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Hayes v. Sheraton Operating Corp. 156 So. 3d 1193 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 9/25/02), ; State v. Mims, 97-1500, p. 59 (La.App.
State v. Jacques 157 So. 3d 750 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Cushenberry 146 So. 3d 777 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Simms 143 So. 3d 1258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 9/25/02), (citing State v. Williams, 96-1023, p. 15 (La.1/21/98), ).
State v. Celestine 131 So. 3d 947 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Augustine 131 So. 3d 109 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Caliste 125 So. 3d 8 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Lawrence 120 So. 3d 812 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
4 Cir. 9/25/02) , , in support of its argument that the comments by the prosecutor fall well short of the type of statements that would warrant a mistrial.
State v. Cleveland 115 So. 3d 578 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
4 Cir. 9/25/02), , this court set forth the standard for determining whether a prosecutor’s remarks are so prejudicial as to warrant a new trial: The scope of closing argument “shall be confined to evidence admitted, to the lack of evidence, to conclusions of fact that the state or defendant may draw therefrom, and to the law ap
State v. Ruffin 82 So. 3d 497 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
4 Cir. 9/25/02), , this Court set forth the standard for determining whether a prosecutor’s remarks are so prejudicial as to warrant a new trial: The scope of closing argument “shall be confined to evidence admitted, to the lack of evidence, to conclusions of fact that the state or defendant may draw therefrom, and to the law ap
State v. Fortune 54 So. 3d 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
4 Cir. 9/25/02), (citations omitted).
State v. Jones 51 So. 3d 827 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Harvey 12 So. 3d 496 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
4 Cir. 9/25/02) , , this court set forth the standard for determining whether a prosecutor's remarks are so prejudicial as to warrant a new trial: The scope of closing argument "shall be confined to evidence admitted, to the lack of evidence, to conclusions of fact that the state or defendant may draw therefrom, and to the law applicab
State v. Jackson 11 So. 3d 524 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
4 Cir. 9/25/02) , , this Court set forth the standard for determining whether a prosecutor’s remarks are so prejudicial as to warrant a new trial: The scope of closing argument “shall be confined to evidence admitted, to the lack of evidence, to conclusions of fact that the state or defendant may draw therefrom, and to the law applicab
State v. Camper 996 So. 2d 571 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
4 Cir. 9/25/02), , this Court set forth the standard for determining whether a prosecutor's remarks are so prejudicial as to warrant a new trial: The scope of closing argument "shall be confined to evidence admitted, to the lack of evidence, to conclusions of fact that the state or defendant may draw therefrom, and to the law ap
State v. Woodfork 981 So. 2d 717 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
4 Cir. 9/25/02), , this court set forth the standard for determining whether a prosecutor's remarks are so prejudicial as to warrant a new trial: The scope of closing argument "shall be confined to evidence admitted, to the lack of evidence, to conclusions of fact that the state or defendant may draw therefrom, and to the law ap
State v. Williams 977 So. 2d 160 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
4 Cir. 9/25/02), , this court set forth the standard for determining whether a prosecutor's *179 remarks are so prejudicial as to warrant a new trial: The scope of closing argument "shall be confined to evidence admitted, to the lack of evidence, to conclusions of fact that the state or defendant may draw therefrom, and to the l
State v. Stukes 944 So. 2d 679 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
4 Cir. 9/25/02), , this court set forth the standard for determining whether a prosecutor’s remarks are so prejudicial as to warrant a new trial: The scope of closing argument “shall be confined to evidence admitted, to the lack of evidence, to conclusions of fact that the state or defendant may draw therefrom, and to the law ap
State v. Riley 941 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
4 Cir. 9/25/02), , this court set forth the standard for determining whether a prosecutor's remarks are so prejudicial as to warrant a new trial: The scope of closing argument "shall be confined to evidence admitted, to the lack of evidence, to conclusions of fact that the state or defendant may draw therefrom, and to the law ap