Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Jones, 922 So. 2d 508.

26 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. David W. Lupton, III La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2025
State of Louisiana v. Charlie Collins La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2021
State of Louisiana v. Edwin Albert Miller La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
State v. Miller 269 So. 3d 806 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
State v. Johnston 245 So. 3d 1231 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
State v. Shoupe 215 So. 3d 345 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
782 and 930.3; State v. Brown, 2011-1044 (La.03/13/12), ; and *348 State v. Jones, 2005-0226 (La.02/22/06), .
State v. Johnson 196 So. 3d 26 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
State v. Jones, 2005-0226 (La.2/22/06), .
State of Louisiana v. Sherman R. Bell, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
State v. Spencer 167 So. 3d 847 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See State v. Jones, 05-226 (La.2/22/06), .
State v. Dahlem 148 So. 3d 591 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
*597 In Brown, 85 So.3d at 54 , however, the court noted that in State v. Jones, 2005-0226 (La.2/22/06), , it had found the error of trying a six-person jury offense before a twelve-person jury to be a trial error subject to harmless error analysis, rather than a structural 4 or jurisdictional 5 defect in the proceedings.
State of Louisiana v. Walter Urena La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
[I]n State v. Jones, 05–0226, p. 3 (La.2/22/06), [the supreme court] held that the error in trying a six-person jury offense in a 12–person jury forum no longer constitutes a non- waivable structural defect in the proceedings but ―falls within the vast category of trial errors which are subject to harmless error analysis and
State v. Urena 161 So. 3d 701 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
[I]n State v. Jones, 05-0226, p. 3 (La.2/22/06), , [the supreme court] held that the error in trying a six-person jury offense in a 12-person jury forum no longer constitutes a non-waivable structural defect in the proceedings but “falls within the vast category of trial errors which are subject to hannless error analysis and which warrant reversal only where t
State of Louisiana v. Tommy Paul Bourque La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
lly prejudiced the defendant’s case because defense counsel failed to object or to file a motion in arrest of judgment on this ground and because there is no longer a “supposition that errors in jury composition are invariably jurisdictional or structural in nature.” The Court cited with approval Justice Weimer’s concurrence in State v. Jones, 2005-0226 (La.2/22/06), in which he stated that “[a] defendant should not have the opportunity of gambling on a favorable verdict from the larger jury and
State v. T.T. 111 So. 3d 71 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
rror in jury composition actually prejudiced the defendant’s case because defense counsel failed to object or to file a motion in arrest of judgment on this ground and because there is no longer a “supposition that errors in jury composition are invariably jurisdictional or structural in nature.” The Court cited with approval Justice Weimer’s concurrence in State v. Jones, 2005-0226 (La.2/22/06), , in which he stated that “[a] defendant should not have the opportunity of gambling on a favorable
State of Louisiana v. L. W. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
2/22/06), the Louisiana Supreme Court held: Furthermore, we find that the empaneling of a jury composed of a greater number of persons than constitutionally required is no longer a 3 The bills of information charging the offenses of molestation and aggravated incest have the word ―attempted
State v. Brown 85 So. 3d 52 La. 2012
We addressed the impact of the change in the law in State v. Jones, 05-0226, p. 3 (La.2/22/06), , and held that the error in trying a six-person jury offense in a 12-person jury forum no longer constitutes a non-waivable structural defect in the proceedings but “falls within the vast category of trial errors which are subject to harmless error analysis and which warrant reversal only where the defendant is
State of Louisiana v. Curt E. Johnson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
2/22/06), upholding a conviction by a unanimous verdict of twelve in a case requiring only six jurors, the law has not changed regarding the impropriety of trying a criminal defendant before a jury of six when a jury of twelve is required.
State v. Johnson 52 So. 3d 273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Although the Louisiana Supreme Court partially abrogated the decision in Nedds in its more recent decision State v. Jones, 05-226 (La.2/22/06), , upholding a conviction by a unanimous verdict of twelve in a case requiring only six jurors, the law has not changed regarding the impropriety of trying a criminal defendant before a jury of six when a jury of twelve is required.
State v. Foret 11 So. 3d 1242 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
2/22/06), -512 , there was no error in the instant defendant being tried before a six-person jury and sentenced under LSA-R.S.
State v. Taylor 975 So. 2d 10 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
The Louisiana Supreme Court cases of State v. Jackson, 04-2863 (La.11/29/05), (guilty plea to a crime that was not responsive to the crime charged in the bill of information), and State v. Jones, 05-0226 (La.2/22/06), (conviction returned by an improper configuration of jurors) signal a recent change of direction for the appellate courts regarding defects in the proceedings as "error patent."
State v. Langley 958 So. 2d 1160 La. 2007
State v. Jones, 2005-226 p. 4 (La.2/22/06), .
State v. Price 952 So. 2d 112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
In State v. Jones , XXXX-XXXX (La.2/22/06), , the Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed an en banc decision by this circuit in which the court was split over the issue of a conviction returned by an improper configuration of jurors.
State v. Young 943 So. 2d 1118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
State v. Jones, XXXX-XXXX, p. 4 (La.2/22/06), .
State v. Crochet 931 So. 2d 1083 La. 2006
See State v. Jones, 05-0226 (La.2/22/06), .
State v. Hano 938 So. 2d 181 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
See State v. Thomas, 2005-2373, p. 1 (La.4/17/06), (per curiam); see also State v. Jones , XXXX-XXXX, pp. 3-4 (La.2/22/06), -12 .
State v. Humphries 927 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
The supreme court recently took up State v. Jones, 05-0226 (La.2/22/06), , a first circuit court of appeal case that abrogated Nedds, supra, in which the issue was whether or not a criminal trial decided by a unanimous jury composed by a greater number of persons than constitutionally required, violated a defendant's constitutional rights.