Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Kang, 859 So. 2d 649.

59 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Daniel Ralph Haire La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
State Of Louisiana v. Chad Michael Borne La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana Versus Gilbert J. Burciaga La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
State Of Louisiana v. Oderra Benitez Holmes La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana Versus Jose M. Sagastume La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
State of Louisiana v. Erick Gail Gragg La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
State Of Louisiana v. Kevin Hamburg La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2022
10/ 21/ 03), State v. Lee, 559 So.
State Of Louisiana v. Michael Halford La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
State of Louisiana Versus Ed Raymond Veillon, Jr. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2020
State v. Savage 218 So. 3d 714 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Earnest G. Hamilton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
The Louisiana Supreme Court recently addressed challenges for cause in State v. Kang, 2002-2812, (La.10/21/03), instructing the appellate court to show deference to the trial court’s conclusions in ruling on a challenge for cause.
Distinguished State v. Hamilton 216 So. 3d 367 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
The Louisiana Supreme Court recently addressed challenges for cause in State v. Kang, 2002-2812, (La.10/21/03), , instructing the appellate court to show deference to the trial court’s conclusions in ruling on a challenge for cause.
State of Louisiana v. Jeffrey Clark 220 So. 3d 583 La. 2016
State of Louisiana v. Calvin Louis Noel, III AKA - Calvin Noel La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
10/21/03), asserts that the Louisiana Supreme Court has stated the following regarding a challenge for cause of a juror based on the juror’s relationship with a police officer: Generally, an individual who will unquestionably credit the testimony of law enforcement officers over that of defense witnesses
State v. Noel 181 So. 3d 223 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
In his brief, appellate counsel, citing State v. Kang, 02-2812 (La.10/21/03), , asserts that the Louisiana Supreme Court has stated the following regarding a challenge for cause of a juror based on the juror’s relationship with a police officer: Generally, an individual who will unquestionably credit the testimony of law enforcement officers over that of defense witnesses is not competent to se
State of Louisiana v. Jerry Vaughn Clifton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
State v. Kang, 02-2812, p. 5 (La.10/21/03); (citing Lee, 559 So.2d at 1318; -72 (La.1980), cert.
State v. Clifton 165 So. 3d 387 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Kang, 02-2812, p. 5 (La.10/21/03); (citing Lee, 559 So.2d at 1318 ; -72 (La.1980), cert.
State v. Burse 169 So. 3d 649 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Kang, 02-2812 (La.10/21/03), .
State v. Miller 160 So. 3d 1069 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Griffin 167 So. 3d 31 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Gant, supra (citing State v. Kang, 02-2812 (La.10/21/03), ); State v. Wideman, 218 La.
State v. Nellum 136 So. 3d 120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
ent without the benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence, she could vote guilty, she replied: “That would weigh heavy on me, that he wouldn’t have any possibility of parole, that he does have to spend life in jail.” The Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the applicable standard of review a trial court’s ruling on a challenge for cause in State v. Kang, 02-2812, pp. 6-7 (La.10/21/03), -54 , stating: *131 In State v. Lee, 93-2810 (La.5/23/94), , this court reiterated the broad discret
State v. Henderson 135 So. 3d 36 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Kang, 2002-2812, p. 4 (La.10/21/03), .
State v. Cleveland 115 So. 3d 578 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
The Louisiana Supreme Court made it clear in State v. Kang, 02-2812, p. 8 (La.10/21/03), , that courts of appeal are to give proper deference to the trial court’s findings with respect to voir dire, and that a prospective juror’s responses during voir dire should be viewed as a whole, and not on a piecemeal basis.
State of Louisiana v. Brady J. Harrington La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Kang, 02-2812, p. 3 (La.10/21/03), State v. Robertson, 92-2660, p. 3 (La.1/14/94)
State v. Harrington 129 So. 3d 38 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Kang, 02-2812, p. 3 (La.10/21/03), ; State v. Robertson, 92-2660, p. 3 (La.1/14/94), .
State v. Boyd 104 So. 3d 642 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Kang, 02-2812, p. 7 (La.10/21/03), .
State v. Hayes 107 So. 3d 668 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Kang, 02-2812, p. 5 (La.10/21/03), .
State v. Magee 103 So. 3d 285 La. 2012
State v. Kang, 02-2812, p. 5 (La.10/21/03)
State v. Lilly 111 So. 3d 45 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Kang, 02-2812 (La.10/21/03), .
State of Louisiana v. Catrina L. Wallace La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
10/21/03), that courts of appeal are to give proper deference to the trial court‟s findings with respect to voir dire, and that a prospective juror‟s responses 7 during voir dire should be viewed as a whole, and not on a piece-meal basis.” Furthermore, in Raymond, the fifth ci
State v. Wallace 92 So. 3d 592 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
5 Cir. 4/28/09), , writ denied, 09-1205 (La.2/5/10), , the Louisiana Supreme Court “made it clear in State v. Kang, 02-2812, p. 8 (La.10/21/03), , that courts of appeal are to give proper deference to the trial court’s findings with respect to voir dire, and that a prospective juror’s responses | ^during voir dire should be viewed as a whole, and not on a piece-meal basis.” Furthermore, in Raymond , the fifth circuit stated, An appellate court does not ha
State of Louisiana v. K.W. T. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
10/21/03), -53 (citations omitted).
State v. Brown 92 So. 3d 579 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
State v. Kang, 2002-2812 (La.10/21/03), .
State of Louisiana v. Rodney Ian Barnes La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Kang, 02-2812, p. 3 (La.10/21/03), State v. Robertson, 92-2660, p. 3 (La.1/14/94)
State v. Barnes 93 So. 3d 666 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Kang, 02-2812, p. 3 (La.10/21/03), ; State v. Robertson, 92-2660, p. 3 (La.1/14/94), .
State v. Ruffin 82 So. 3d 497 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Kang, 2002-2812 (La.10/21/03), .
State v. Dorsey 74 So. 3d 603 La. 2011
State v. Kang, 02-2812, p. 5 (La.10/21/03); (citing Lee, 559 So.2d at 1318 ; -72 (La.1980), cert.
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
State v. Kang, 02-2812, pp. 4-5 (La.10/21/03), -53 .
State v. Mazique 40 So. 3d 224 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Constance 25 So. 3d 247 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
10/21/03), -655 , the defendant argued that the response of "probably" by Mr. Whitcomb, a prospective juror, indicated his unacceptable hesitancy to find the defendant not guilty if the State failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. ZANTIZ 24 So. 3d 1034 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
10/21/03), , the defendant argued that the response of "probably" by Mr. Whitcomb, a prospective juror, indicated his unacceptable hesitancy to find the defendant not guilty if the State failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. Dupas 17 So. 3d 518 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
10/21/03), ; State v. Copeland, 530 So.
State v. Raymond 13 So. 3d 577 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
|10The Louisiana Supreme Court made it clear in State v. Kang, 02-2812, p. 8 (La.10/21/03), , that courts of appeal, are to give proper deference to the trial court’s findings with respect to voir dire, and that a prospective juror’s responses during voir dire should be viewed as a whole, and not on a piecemeal basis.
State v. Eason 3 So. 3d 685 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
State v. Lindsey, XXXX-XXXX *693 (La.1/17/07), ; State v. Kang, 02-2812 (La.10/21/03), ; State v. Robertson, 92-2660 (La.
State v. Lizotte 977 So. 2d 303 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
State of Louisiana v. Paul Roberts, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
10/21/03), a venire member said he was a next door neighbor to a high ranking police officer and would “probably tend to put more weight on the Deputies, especially if it’s on things they observed.” Id.
State v. Lindsey 948 So. 2d 105 La. 2007
State v. Kang, 02-2812, p. 3 (La.10/21/03), ; State v. Robertson, 92-2660, p. 3 (La.1/14/94), .
State v. Roberts 947 So. 2d 208 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
In State v. Kang, 02-2812 (La.10/21/03), , a venire member said he was a next door neighbor to a high ranking police officer and would "probably tend to put more weight on the Deputies, especially if it's on things they observed."
State of Louisiana v. Lisa Landry Johnson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
10/21/03), -53(second omission in original).