Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Harry, 823 So. 2d 987.

13 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Darren Bridges La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana v. Gerard Ladmirault La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2019
App. 4 Cir. 6/26/02), (wherein this Court held that the state’s reference to the defendant, charged with possession and distribution of cocaine, as someone who might approach the children of the jurors or someone they cared about was not reversible error).
State v. Spencer 151 So. 3d 816 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Pleasant 102 So. 3d 247 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Jones 99 So. 3d 1061 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Jackson 11 So. 3d 524 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
4 Cir. 6/26/02) , , this Court found although the prosecutor’s statement that the defendant was the type of person to approach the jurors’ children and try to sell them drugs was improper, it did not contribute to the verdict and thus did not entitle the defendant to a new trial.
State v. NIONS 952 So. 2d 770 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
State v. Stukes 944 So. 2d 679 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
4 Cir. 6/26/02) , , the prosecutor referred to the defendant as someone who might approach the juror’s children or someone they cared about and try to sell them drugs.
State v. Riley 941 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
App. 4 Cir. 6/26/02), , this court found the prosecutor's statement, that the defendant was the type of person to approach the jurors' children or someone they cared about and try to sell them drugs, was improper but did not contribute to the verdict and thus did not entitle the defendant to a new trial.
State v. Ambeau 930 So. 2d 54 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
4 Cir. 6/26/02), -92 , citing State v. Frank, 99-0553 (La.1/17/01), .
State v. Staggers 860 So. 2d 174 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
4 Cir.6/26/02), , writs denied, 02-2029 (La.2/7/03), and 02-2299 (La.2/7/03), .
State v. Young 839 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
4 Cir. 6/26/02), -92 , in which we rejected a similar argument.
State v. Simpson 829 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Outlining the entrapment defense, we recently stated in State v. Harry, 2001-2336, p. 5 (La.4 Cir.6/26/02), , 992: "Entrapment" is an affirmative defense that applies when a law enforcement official originates the idea of the crime and induces another person to engage in conduct constituting the crime, when the other person is not otherwise disposed to do so.