Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Anderson, 996 So. 2d 973.

65 citing documents.

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. Anderson, 06-2987, pp. 41-43 (La.9/9/08), -05 , cert.
State v. Jones 46 So. 3d 756 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
P. art. 703 D; State v. Anderson, 2006-2987 (La.9/9/08), at 24, ; State v. Bowers, 39,970 (La.App.
State v. Dressner 45 So. 3d 127 La. 2010
See State v. Anderson, 06-2987, pp. 45-52 (La.9/9/08), -10 (eighty-five-year-old female sustained ten major stab wounds, left on her kitchen floor to watch defendant steal valuables from her home as life oozed from her), cert.
State v. Nelson 39 So. 3d 658 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Anderson, 06-2987, p. 27 (La.9/9/08), , cert.
State v. Bernard 31 So. 3d 1025 La. 2010
The trial court’s conclusions on credibility and weight of the testimony are to be “accorded great weight and will not be overturned unless they are not supported by the evidence.” State v. Anderson, 06-2978, p. 25 (La.2008) .
State of Louisiana v. Joseph T. Plauche La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. Plauche 32 So. 3d 852 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
In State v. Anderson, 06-2987, pp. 41-43 (La.9/9/08), , cert.
State v. Wilson 28 So. 3d 394 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
1769, 1771 , 131 L.Ed.2d 884 (1995); State v. Anderson, 06-2987 (La.9/9/08), -1005, cert.
State v. Anderson 28 So. 3d 324 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Anderson, 06-2987, p. 27 (La.9/9/08), , cert.
State v. Williams 22 So. 3d 867 La. 2009
ut that neither our legislature nor our jurisprudence has set forth a specific IQ score for determining intellectual functioning in the capital sentencing context, this court, like the Atkins Court, has recognized that mental health experts and the medical literature have acknowledged an IQ of 70 as “the line demarcating mild mental retardation.” See State v. Anderson, 06-2987, p. 16 (La.9/9/08), ; State v. Williams, 01-1650, pp. 23-24, 831 So.2d at 853-54 ; State v. Dunn, 01-1635, p. 28 (La.11/
State of Louisiana v. Wilbert Joseph John La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
State v. John 11 So. 3d 1248 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
State v. C.C. 5 So. 3d 1034 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Additionally, as explained by the supreme court in State v. Anderson, 06-2987, p. 21 (La.9/9/08), , 992: [rjeasonable ground in this context refers to information which, objectively considered, should reasonably raise a doubt about the defendant’s competency and alert the court to the possibility that the defendant can neither understand the proceedings, appreciate the proceedings’ significance, nor rationally aid
State v. Warren 2 So. 3d 523 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
Law In State v. Anderson, 2006-2987 (La.9/9/08), , the Louisiana Supreme Court restated the well-settled law regarding jury selection and the appellate review of rulings on challenges for cause: The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the accused the right to a trial by an impartial jury.