Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Holmes, 5 So. 3d 42.

70 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Chad Scott La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2026
State of Louisiana v. Hermandus Dashnski Semien La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2025
State of Louisiana v. Don Lee Johnson La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2025
15:432; State v. Holmes, 06-2988 (La.12/2/08), cert.
State Of Louisiana v. Cordale Richard La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2025
State of Louisiana Versus Bunnak Landon La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana v. William G Perkins La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana v. Rj Bartie La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
See State v. Holmes, 06-2988 (La.12/2/08), cert.
State of Louisiana v. Scot Martin Kidd La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
See State v. Holmes, 06-2988 (La.12/2/08), cert.
State of Louisiana v. Travis Boys La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
12/2/08), (“[a]lthough a trial court may receive expert medical testimony on the issue of a defendant’s competency to proceed to trial, the ultimate decision of capacity rests alone with the trial court.
State of Louisiana Versus Teddy Chester La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2021
12/2/08), -60, 72-73 (defendant with IQ of 77 and fetal alcohol syndrome made knowing and intelligent waiver); Green, 94-0887, pp. 7-19, 655 So.2d at 278-845 (mildly retarded defendant’s waiver was knowing and intelligent, despite psychologist’s
State Of Louisiana v. Thelma Louise Brown La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
State of Louisiana v. Jeremy Rachal La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2020
State of Louisiana v. Joshua Darelle Lewis La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2020
State v. Alexander 267 So. 3d 682 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
12/2/08), ; State v. Simmons , , 515 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Lee Turner, Jr. 263 So. 3d 337 La. 2018
12/2/08), (citing Frazier and noting “such interrogation techniques have been upheld”).
State v. Patterson 241 So. 3d 433 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Jackson 246 So. 3d 646 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
State v. Papizan 256 So. 3d 1091 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Anderson 244 So. 3d 640 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
State v. Nixon 222 So. 3d 123 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Jeffrey Clark 220 So. 3d 583 La. 2016
12/2/08), -90 ; State v. Bernard, 608 So.2d at 971-72 .
State v. Chester 208 So. 3d 338 La. 2016
12/2/08), -60, 72-73 (defendant with IQ of 77 and fetal alcohol *345 syndrome made knowing and intelligent waiver); Green , 94-0887, pp. 7-19, 655 So.2d at 278-84 (mildly retarded defendant’s waiver was knowing and intelligent, despite psychologist’s testimony that he was unable to comprehend his rights, because psychologist
State v. Farris 210 So. 3d 877 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
State of Louisiana v. Robert Leroy McCoy 218 So. 3d 535 La. 2016
12/2/08), cert denied, 558 U.S. 932, 130 S.Ct.
State of Louisiana v. Marcus Donte Reed 200 So. 3d 291 La. 2016
12/2/08), (defendant and her boyfriend forced their way into the home of 70-year-old Julian Brandon and 68-year-old Alice Brandon, shot Julian, then stabbed and slashed him to death, and robbed Alice before shooting her in the head); State v. Edwards, 97-1797 (La.
State v. Jackson 193 So. 3d 425 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
4 Cir. 2/6/13), (citing State v. Holmes, 06 -2988, p. 34 (La.12/2/08), ; ).
State of Louisiana v. Robert Glen Coleman 188 So. 3d 174 La. 2016
State v. Ellis 195 So. 3d 480 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
State v. Holmes, 2006 -2988 (La.12/2/08), , cert.
State v. Barbain 179 So. 3d 770 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
4 Cir. 2/6/13), (citing State v. Holmes, 06 -2988, p. 34 (La.12/2/08), ; ).
State v. Gaspard 169 So. 3d 407 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
896, 903 , 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975); State v. Holmes, 06 -2988 (La.12/2/08), , cert.
State v. Taylor 161 So. 3d 963 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
15:432; State v. Holmes, 2006 -2988 (La.12/02/08), , cert.
State v. Johnson 165 So. 3d 961 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Holmes, 06 -2988 (La.12/2/08), , cert.
State v. Winzer 151 So. 3d 135 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
State v. Holmes, 06 -2988 (La.12/2/08), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Eric Dale Mickelson La. 2014
State v. Watkins 146 So. 3d 294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
In State v. Holmes, 06 -2988, p. 55 (La.12/2/08), -80 , the Supreme Court set forth the applicable law for review of claims that a defendant’s right to voir dire was unconstitutionally limited: La.
State v. Ellis 144 So. 3d 1152 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
12/2/08), , cert, denied, 558 U.S. 932 , 130 S.Ct.
State v. Hankton 140 So. 3d 398 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
The standard for appellate review of claims that voir dire was unlawfully limited was reiterated by the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Holmes, 06 -2988, p. 55 (La.12/2/08), , 79-80: La.
State v. Williams 137 So. 3d 832 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Holmes, 06 -2988, p. 48 (La.12/2/08), .
State v. Cope 137 So. 3d 151 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
15:451; State v. Holmes, 06 -2988 (La.12/2/08), , cert, denied, 558 U.S. 932 , 130 S.Ct.
State v. Diggins 126 So. 3d 770 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
“[A] trial court need not even entertain pro se motions when a defendant is represented by counsel and entertaining the motions will lead to confusion at trial.” State v. Holmes, 06 -2988, p. 80-1 (La.12/2/08), .
State v. Parker 124 So. 3d 516 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Holmes, 06 -2988 (La.12/2/08), , cert.
State v. Henry 124 So. 3d 1108 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
He contends that the trial court prevented him from questioning potential jurors about their “attitudes on -the testimony of police officers as eyewitnesses.” *1112 The Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Holmes, 2006 -2988, p. 55 (La.12/2/08), -80 , set forth the standard of review for claims that voir dire was unlawfully limited: La.
State v. Pham 119 So. 3d 202 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2013
23 (See, State v. Holmes, 06-2988 (La.12/2/08); -70 , cert.
State v. Buhcannon 112 So. 3d 312 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Holmes, 06 -2988, p. 34 (La.12/2/08)
State v. Gross 110 So. 3d 1173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Brown 109 So. 3d 966 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Holmes, 2006 -2988, p. 34 (La.12/2/08)
State v. Ortiz 110 So. 3d 1029 La. 2013
at 2636 ); cf. Thompson v. Calderon, 120 F.3d 1045, 1058 (9th Cir.1997) (“[W]hen no new significant evidence comes to light a prosecutor cannot, in order to convict two defendants at separate trials, offer inconsistent theories and facts regarding the same crime.”); State v. Holmes, 06 -2988, p. 24 (La.12/2/08), (“Due process forbids a state from employing inconsistent and irreconcilable theories to secure convictions against individuals for the same offenses arising from the same event.”) (disc
State v. Ellis 109 So. 3d 944 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Holmes, 06 -2988, p. 34 (La.12/2/08), .
State v. Robinson 102 So. 3d 922 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2012
2 Cir. 1/31/07); , writ denied,, 07-0439 (La.10/12/07); , where the consideration of defendants’ past histories of schizophrenia did not warrant reversal of the trial courts’ determinations of defendants’ present competency to stand trial; and State v. Holmes, 06 -2988 (La.12/2/08); , cert.
State v. Williams 101 So. 3d 104 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Holmes, 2006 -2998, p. 55 (La.12/2/08), -80 .