Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Manning, 885 So. 2d 1044.

148 citing documents.

State v. Lloyd 161 So. 3d 879 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
State v. Manning, 2003-1982 (La.10/19/04), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Ashaki Okung Kelly La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Significantly, the Supreme Court in State v. Manning, 03-1982 (La.10/19/04), quoted with approval Mullen v. Blackburn, 808 F.2d 1143, 1147 (5th Cir.1987), where the federal Fifth Circuit rejected the 14 cumulative error doctrine by noting that “twenty times zero equals zero.” State v. Ayo
State v. Kelly 153 So. 3d 1257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Significantly, the Supreme Court in State v. Manning, 03-1982 (La.10/19/04), , quoted with approval Mullen v. Blackburn, 808 F.2d 1143, 1147 (5th Cir.1987), where the federal Fifth Circuit rejected the | ^cumulative error doctrine by noting that “twenty times zero equals zero.” State v. Ayo, 08-468, pp. 29-30 (La.App.
State ex rel. J.D. 154 So. 3d 726 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
3517, 3520 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1275 (1983) (per curiam)); State v. Manning, 03-1982, p. 24 (La.10/19/04), (citations omitted).
State v. Henry 147 So. 3d 1143 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Manning, 2003-1982, p. 75 (La.10/19/04), .
State v. Cushenberry 146 So. 3d 777 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Manning, 03-1982, p. 75 (La.10/19/04), (citing State v. Brumfield, 96-2667 (La.10/20/98), ).
State v. Allen 141 So. 3d 877 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
nse moved for a continuance on November 29, 2012, arguing that it needed time to hire an expert, at the beginning of trial on December 4, 2012, defense counsel stated: “after many hours of review I’ve done on this case as well as the medical records, ..., and consulting with medical personnel, there will be no contestation of the cause of death.” In State v. Manning, 20-1982, p. 30 (La.10/19/04), , the Supreme Court stated: We have consistently held that the decision whether to grant or refuse a
State v. Hankton 140 So. 3d 398 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
3517, 3520 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1275 (1983)(per curiam)); State v. Manning, 03-1982, p. 24 (La.10/19/04), (citations omitted).
State v. Cope 137 So. 3d 151 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
Holmes, supra; State v. Manning, 03-1982 (La.10/19/04), , cert, denied, 544 U.S. 967 , 125 S.Ct.
State v. Simmons 136 So. 3d 358 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Manning, 03-1982 (La.10/19/04), , cert.
State v. Wilson 138 So. 3d 661 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
It is well-settled that “a lesser and included offense is one in which all of its essential elements are also essential elements of the greater charge, such that evidence sufficient to support a conviction of the charged offense necessarily supports conviction on the lesser offense.” State v. Manning, 03-1982, p. 65 (La.10/19/04), ; State v. Maxwell, 11-0564, p. 28 (La.App.
State v. Sippio 133 So. 3d 294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Manning, 2008-1982 (La.10/19/04), (citations omitted).
State v. Fielding 130 So. 3d 1052 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
State v. *1059 Heard, supra; State v. Manning, 2003-1982 (La.10/19/04), , cert.
State v. Tassin 129 So. 3d 1235 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2013
State v. Manning, 03-1982 (La.10/19/04), , cert.
State v. Celestine 131 So. 3d 947 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
art. 774 further provides that closing argument “shall not appeal to prejudice,” and the State’s rebuttal argument “shall be confined to answering the argument of the defendant.” A prosecutor “should refrain from making personal attacks on defense strategy and counsel.” State v. Manning, 03-1982, p. 75 (La.10/19/04), .
State of Louisiana v. Brian Segura La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
10/19/04), -24 (La.1982).
State v. Segura 127 So. 3d 1034 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Manning, 03-1982, p. 7 (La.10/19/04), ; -24 (La.1982).
State v. Augustine 131 So. 3d 109 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Manning, 03-1982, p. 75 (La.10/19/04), (citing State v. Brumfield, 96-2667 (La.10/20/98), ).
State of Louisiana v. Jerry Anthony Brandon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Bailey 126 So. 3d 702 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Manning, 2003-1982, p. 75 (La.10/19/04), , citing State v. Brumfield, 96-2667, p. 9 (La.10/20/98), , 666
State v. Allen 126 So. 3d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
In State v. Manning, 03-1982, p. 75 (La.10/19/04), , the defendant contended that the following rebuttal remarks constituted prosecutorial misconduct: And let me touch on a few things here, ladies and gentlemen, that Mr. Lawrence brought out in his closing.
State v. Caliste 125 So. 3d 8 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
In State v. Manning, 03-1982, p. 80 (La.10/19/04), , the Supreme Court stated: We have consistently held that the decision whether to grant or refuse a motion for a continuance rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and a reviewing court will not disturb such a determination absent a clear abuse of discretion.
State v. Lawrence 120 So. 3d 812 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Manning, 03-1982, p. 75 (La.10/19/04), ; State v. Brumfield, 96-2667, p. 9 (La.10/20/98), .
State v. Jackson 115 So. 3d 1155 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Manning, 03-1982, p. 75 (La.10/19/04), ; State v. Brumfield, 96-2667, p. 9 (La.10/20/98), .
State v. Hardy 109 So. 3d 344 La. 2013
3 See also State v. Manning, 2003-1982 (La.10/19/04), -88 (noting that the computer program used by the prosecution’s expert, to calculate the frequency rates of specific DNA profiles appearing in various populations, had been made available to the defense during discovery); State v. Stelly, 94-306 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Easton Joseph Francisco La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State of Louisiana v. Joseph Jones La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Jones 101 So. 3d 1083 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
In State v. Manning, 03-1982, p. 30 (La.10/19/04), , cert.
State v. Francisco 101 So. 3d 617 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
See also, State v. Manning, 03-1982 (La.10/19/04), , cert.
State v. Magee 103 So. 3d 285 La. 2012
State v. Manning, 03-1982, p. 7 (La.10/19/04), ; -24 (La.1982).
State v. Seals 83 So. 3d 285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
03-1982 (La.10/19/04), , cert.
State v. Scie 83 So. 3d 1082 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
5 Cir. 11/25/08), , writ denied, 09-0158 (La.10/16/09), (citing State v. Manning, 03-1982, p. 30 (La.10/19/04), , cert.
State v. Maxwell 83 So. 3d 113 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Manning, 2003-1982, p. 65 (La.10/19/04), ; State v. Marts, 98-0099, p. 11 (La.App.
State v. Hernandez 82 So. 3d 327 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Manning, 03-1982, p. 34 (La.10/19/04), , cert.
State v. McElveen 73 So. 3d 1033 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Significantly, the Supreme Court in State v. Manning, 03-1982 (La.10/19/04), , quoted with approval in Mullen v. Blackburn, 808 F.2d 1143, 1147 (5th Cir.1987), where the federal court 1 .^rejected the cumulative error doctrine by noting that “twenty times zero equals zero.” Consequently, this assignment of error is without merit.
State v. Dorsey 74 So. 3d 603 La. 2011
State v. Manning, 03-1982, p. 32 (La.10/19/04); -79 ; State v. Connolly, 96-1680, pp. 11-12 (La.7/1/97); -19 .
State v. Jacobs 67 So. 3d 535 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Manning, 03-1982, p. 32 (La.10/19/04), -79 , cert.
State v. Sparks 68 So. 3d 435 La. 2011
at 2047 ; State v. Manning, 03-1982, p. 26 (La.10/19/04), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Ricky Joseph Langley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Langley 61 So. 3d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
The defendant argues the court should have heard Fulero’s testimony, because it met the “Daubert criteria.” The supreme court has addressed Dau-bert in State v. Manning, 03-1982, p. 44 (La.10/19/04), -87 , cert.
State v. Shannon 61 So. 3d 706 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
5 Cir. 11/25/08), , writ denied, 09-0158 (La.10/16/09), (citing State v. Manning, 03-1982, p. 30 (La.10/19/04), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Vincent Marinello La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Significantly, the Supreme Court in State v. Manning, 03-1982 (La.10/19/04), quoted with approval Mullen v. Blackburn, 808 F.2d 1143, 1147 (5th Cir.1987), where the federal Fifth Circuit rejected the cumulative error doctrine by noting that “twenty times zero equals zero.” State v. Ayo, 08-468, pp. 29-30 (La.App.
State v. Marinello 49 So. 3d 488 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Significantly, the Supreme Court in State v. Manning, 03-1982 (La.10/19/04), , quoted with approval Mullen v. Blackburn, 808 F.2d 1143, 1147 (5th Cir.1987), where the federal Fifth Circuit rejected the cumulative error doctrine by noting that “twenty times zero equals zero.” State v. Ayo, 08-468, pp. 29-30 (La.App.
State v. Dressner 45 So. 3d 127 La. 2010
682 , 166 L.Ed.2d 531 (2006); State v. Manning, 03-1982, pp. 70-72 (La.10/19/04), -05 (“Cases involving stabbings in which this Court laphas determined that the offense had been committed in an especially heinous and cruel manner share the common theme that the victim died slowly.”), cert.
State v. Mazique 40 So. 3d 224 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Jacobs 32 So. 3d 227 La. 2010
Compare State v. Harris, 2001-2730 p. 12 (La.1/19/05), , 1261 with State v. Manning, 2003-1982 pp. 40-42 (La.10/19/04), -1085 .
State v. Reeves 11 So. 3d 1031 La. 2009
Finally, this court “has given the statutory aggravating circumstance of latheinousness a narrow construction, requiring ‘that to be valid there must exist elements of torture, pitiless infliction of unnecessary pain or serious bodily abuse prior to death.’ ” State v. Manning, 2003-1982 p. 67-68 (La.10/19/04), , cert.
State v. Ayo 7 So. 3d 85 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Significantly, the Supreme Court in State v. Manning, 03-1982 (La.10/19/04), , quoted with approval Mullen v. Blackburn, 808 F.2d 1143, 1147 (5th Cir.1987), where the federal Fifth Circuit rejected the cumulative error doctrine by noting that “twenty times zero equals zero.” This assignment of error has no merit.
State v. Terrell 9 So. 3d 245 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Manning, 03-1982, p. 46 (La.10/19/04), , cert.
State v. Lewis 7 So. 3d 782 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
While some of the potential jurors stated they had seen articles about the crime, none of them stated any specific details concerning the crime or the defendant, nor did any of them firmly state an opinion based on the articles.”); see also State v. Manning, 2003-1982, p. 13 n. 13 (La.10/19/04), , 1065-66 n. 13, cert.