Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Draughn, 950 So. 2d 583.

278 citing documents.

State v. Johnson 187 So. 3d 35 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
See State v. Draughn, 05-1825, p. 44 (La.1/17/07), (citing State v. Leonard, 05-1382, p. 11 (La.6/16/06), ) (“Mistrial is a drastic remedy, and the determination of whether prejudice to the defendant has resulted from the prosecutor’s comments 'lies 'in the sound discretion of the trial judge.”).
State v. Lambert 186 So. 3d 728 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
See also State v. Draughn, 2005-1825 (La,1/17/07), ; [State v.] Casey, supra [1999-0023 (La.1/26/00), ]; State v. Wilts, 2008-1441 (La.App.
State v. Preston 178 So. 3d 207 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Draught 05-1825 (La.1/17/07), , cert.
State v. Jones 178 So. 3d 1075 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
State v. Draughn, 2005-1825 (La.1/17/07), , cert.
State v. Carter 171 So. 3d 1265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Draughn, 05-1825, p. 8 (La.1/17/07), , cert.
State v. Woodberry 171 So. 3d 1082 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Draughn, 05-1825, p. 8 (La.1/17/07), .
State v. Vansant 170 So. 3d 1059 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See State v. Draughn, 2005-1825 (La.1/17/07), , cert.
State v. Humbles 169 So. 3d 547 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Draughn, 05-1825 (La.1/17/07), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Jaymes Larmar Harris La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
State v. Harris 157 So. 3d 1230 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Regarding a “cumulative error” claim where the individual assignments of error are found to be without merit, the supreme court has maintained that “the combined effect of the incidences complained of, none of which amounts to reversible error [does] not deprive the defendant of his right to a fair trial.” State v. Draughn, 05-1825, p. 70 (La.1/17/07), , cert.
State v. Berniard 163 So. 3d 71 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
“[W]here circumstantial evidence forms the basis of the conviction, the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, ‘assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove.’ ” State v. Draughn, 05-1825, p. 7 (La.1/17/07), (quoting La.
State v. Edwards 162 So. 3d 512 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
State v. Draughn, 2005-1825 (La.01/17/07), , cert.
State v. Ellis 161 So. 3d 64 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See State v. Draughn, 2005-1825, p. 70 (La.1/17/07), (-45 (La.1988)).
State of Louisiana v. Ashaki Okung Kelly La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State v. Draughn, 05-1825, p. 70 (La.1/17/07)
State v. Kelly 153 So. 3d 1257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Draughn, 05-1825, p. 70 (La.1/17/07), .
State v. Henry 147 So. 3d 1143 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Draughn, 2005-1825, p. 7 (La.1/17/07), .
State v. Cushenberry 146 So. 3d 777 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See also State v. Draughn, 2005-1825 (La.1/17/07), ; Casey; State v. Wiltz, 2008-1441 (La.App.
State in the Intrest of T. H. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State of Louisiana v. Wilford B. Vangure AKA Wilfred Vangure AKA Wilfred B. Vangure La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State ex rel. T.H. 140 So. 3d 911 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
In State v. Draughn, 05-1825, pp. 7-8 (La.1/17/07), -93 , cert.
State v. Franklin 142 So. 3d 295 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Parker 141 So. 3d 839 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
In State v. Draughn, 05-1825 (La.01/17/07), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Alcide Hypolite La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State v. Hypolite 139 So. 3d 687 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
In State v. Draughn, 05-1825, pp. 44-45 (La.1/17/07), , cert.
State v. Coleman 142 So. 3d 130 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Draughn, 05-1825 (La.1/17/07), , cert.
State v. Haynes 144 So. 3d 1083 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See also State v. Draughn, 2005-1825 (La.1/17/07), .
State v. Williams 137 So. 3d 832 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See State v. Draughn, 05-1825, p. 70 (La.1/17/07), (-545 (La.1988)).
State v. Hampton 136 So. 3d 240 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
“[A] trial judge has broad discretion in controlling the scope of the closing argument.” State v. Draughn, 05-1825, p. 44 (La.1/17/07), ().
State v. Sippio 133 So. 3d 294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Draughn, 2005-1825, p. 44 (La.1/17/07), ; (a trial judge has broad discretion in controlling the scope of closing argument).
State v. Celestine 131 So. 3d 947 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See also State v. Draughn, 2005-1825 (La.1/17/07), ; [State v.] Casey, supra [1999-0023 (La.1/26/00), ]; State v. Wiltz, 2008-1441 (La.App.
State v. Ruffin 131 So. 3d 330 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Draughn, 05-1825 (La.1/17/07), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Deke Edmond Duraso La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Duraso 127 So. 3d 1015 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
However, the Supreme Court of Louisiana has explained that a defendant is not entitled to relief on the basis of an incomplete record “absent a showing that he was prejudiced by the missing portions of the record.” State v. Draughn, 05-1825, p. 63 (La.1/17/07), , cert.
State v. Augustine 131 So. 3d 109 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See also State v. Draughn, 2005-1825 (La.1/17/07), ; Casey; State v. Wiltz, 2008-1441 (La.App.
State v. Green 128 So. 3d 1172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See State v. Draughn, 05-1825 (La.1/17/07); , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Dennis Weldon Thompson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Thompson 123 So. 3d 360 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Draughn, 05-1825, p. 7 (La.1/17/07), , cert.
State v. Edgar 140 So. 3d 22 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Const, art. 1, § 16 guarantees each accused the right “to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him.” In State v. Draughn, 2005-1825, pp. 47-48 (La.1/17/07), -616 , the Supreme Court noted that it had previously held that “Confrontation means more than being allowed to confront the witnesses physically.
State v. Hollins 123 So. 3d 840 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Draughn, 2005-1825, p. 63 (La.1/17/07), (upheld conviction where record included testimony of all witnesses); State v. Castleberry, 98-1388 at p. 29, 758 So.2d at 773 (lack of recorded bench conference and transcript of voir dire proceedings held not to be substantial or significant omission from record); State v. Allen, 95-1754 (La.9/5/96), 682 So.2d
State v. Jones 122 So. 3d 1065 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See State v. Draughn, 05-1825, p. 70 (La.1/17/07), , -45 (La.1988); State v. Marlowe, 10-1116, p. 67 (La.App.
State v. Brooks 121 So. 3d 788 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See State v. Draughn, 05-1825, p. 8 (La.1/17/07), , cert.
State v. Jones 165 So. 3d 74 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2013
State v. Draughn, 05-1825 (La.1/17/07); , cert.
State v. Alexander 119 So. 3d 698 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Draughn, 05-1825, p. 8 (La.1/17/07); , cert.
State v. Williams 119 So. 3d 228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Draughn, 05-1825 (La.1/17/07), , cert.
State v. Ray 115 So. 3d 17 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See State v. Draughn, 05-1825 (La.1/17/07), , cert.
State v. Breaux 110 So. 3d 281 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
“The trial judge, in his discretion, may determine the disqualification of a witness when a rule of sequestration has been violated.” State v. Draughn, 2005-1825, p. 57 (La.1/17/07), ().
State v. Chairs 106 So. 3d 1232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Draughn, 05-1825 (La.1/17/07), , cert.
State v. Williams 106 So. 3d 1090 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
See State v. Draughn, 05-1825 (La.1/17/07); , cert.
State v. Glover 106 So. 3d 129 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
14:10(1); State v. Draughn, 05-1825 (La.01/17/07), , cert.
State v. Smith 105 So. 3d 744 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
In State v. Draughn, 05-1825 (La.01/17/07), -594 , cert.