Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Ruiz, 955 So. 2d 81.

52 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Keith Joseph Johnson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2026
State of Louisiana v. Kendall D. Singleton A/K/A Kendall Singleton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2025
State of Louisiana v. Exzavian Burnette La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
4/11/07), the court stated: Louisiana’s contemporaneous objection rule provides “[a]n irregularity or error cannot be availed of after verdict unless it was objected to at the time of occurrence.” La.Code Crim.
State of Louisiana v. Kanethra Burnett La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana v. Marvin Santiago La. 2024
4/11/07), where this Court held Louisiana’s contemporaneous objection rule provides “[a]n irregularity or error cannot be availed of after verdict unless it was objected to at the time of the occurrence” and failure to do so constitutes waiver.).
State of Louisiana Versus Gilbert J. Burciaga La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
4/11/07), State v. Havies, 22-133 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Carlos M. Smith La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2023
4/11/07), State v. Givens, 99-3518 (La.
State of Lousisiana Versus Hoang M. Le La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana v. John F. Chatman La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2022
State of Louisiana v. Hugh Gilliam La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
State of Louisiana Versus Jared Diaz La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2021
4/11/07), (citations omitted).
State of Louisiana v. Kwalan D. Rubin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
State of Louisiana v. Cassetti Dewayne Brown, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
4/11/07), while Justice Kavanaugh, in his concurrence, slip op., at 15, explicitly states: Only Louisiana and Oregon employ non-unanimous juries in criminal cases.
State of Louisiana v. Donald Broussard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
State of Louisiana v. Joseph Jamaad Leday La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
State of Louisiana v. Ervin Leanard Walker La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
State of Louisiana v. Robert Marquez Wilson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
State v. Brazell 245 So. 3d 15 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
4/11/07), , 87 (citing State v. Arvie , , 47 (La.
State v. Green 245 So. 3d 1105 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
04/11/07), ; State v. Lilley , 43,467 (La.
State v. Copelin 206 So. 3d 990 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
4/11/07), , the Louisiana Supreme Court defined the erroneous introduction of other crimes evidence as a "trial error,” reasoning as follows: Trial error occurs during the presentation of the case to the trier of fact and may be quantitatively assessed in the context of the other evidence to determine whether its admission
State v. Gibson 192 So. 3d 132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
See State v. Baker, 06-2175, p. 15 (La.10/16/07), ; State v. Ruiz, 06-1755, pp. 12-13 (La.4/11/07), .
State of Louisiana v. Vernon Mullins 188 So. 3d 164 La. 2016
Louisiana’s contemporaneous objection rule provides that “[a]n irregularity or error eanr not be availed of after verdict unless it was objected to at the time of occurrence.” State v. Ruiz, 2006-1755 (La.4/11/07), ; La.Code Crim.
State v. Gaubert 179 So. 3d 982 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
4 Cir. 11/14/12), ( (issues and objections not raised at trial will not be considered on appeal unless an error is alleged that is discoverable by a mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings without inspection of the evidence); and State v. Ruiz, 06-1755, p. 8 (La.4/11/07), (to preserve the right to seek appellate review of an alleged trial court error, the party alleging the error must-state an objection contemporaneously with the occurrence of the alleged error, as well as the grounds f
State v. Dahlem 148 So. 3d 591 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Ruiz, 2006-1755 (La.4/11/07), -86 .
State v. Wilson 138 So. 3d 661 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
[by] generalizing a defendant’s earlier bad act into bad character and taking that as raising the odds that he did the later bad act now charged....’” State v. Ruiz, 06-1755, p. 7 (La.4/11/07), , quoting State v. Womack-Grey, 00-1507, p. 1 (La.12/7/01), .
State v. Holloway 120 So. 3d 795 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
However, we note that the other holding in Sanders , that the state may not seek multiple enhancement of a defendant’s sentence on the basis of the same set of prior convictions, was recently cited with approval by this court in State v. Ruiz, 2006-1755 p. 12-13 (La.4/11/07), .
State v. Sanders 104 So. 3d 619 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
art. 841(A)("[a]n irregularity or error cannot be availed of after verdict unless it was objected to at the time of occurrence”); State v. Ruiz, 2006-1755, p. 8 (La.4/11/07), (to preserve the right to seek appellate review of an alleged trial court error, the party alleging the error must state an objection contemporaneously with the occurrence of the alleged error, as well as the grounds for that objection).
State v. Golden 95 So. 3d 522 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Structural errors are limited to errors that “infect the entire trial process and necessarily render a trial fundamentally unfair; they deprive a defendant of basic protections without which a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence.” State v. Ruiz, 2006-1755, p. 6 (La.4/11/07), (citation omitted).
State v. Rubens 83 So. 3d 30 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
[by] generalizing a defendant’s earlier bad act into bad character and taking that as raising the odds that he did the later bad act now charged....” State v. Ruiz, 2006-1755, p. 7 (La.4/11/07), , citing State v. Womack-Grey, 2000-1507, p. 1 (La.12/7/01), , quoting Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 180 , 117 S.Ct.
State v. Carter 75 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Ruiz, 06-1755, p. 8 (La.4/11/07), (citations omitted).
State of Louisiana v. Arthur Bias, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
It overruled Sanders regarding that proposition and noted: “the other holding in Sanders,[4] that the State may not seek multiple enhancement of a defendant’s sentence on the basis of the same set of prior convictions, was recently cited with approval by this court in State v. Ruiz, 2006-1755 p. 12-13 (La.4/11/07), ”5 Id.
Distinguished State v. Bias 63 So. 3d 399 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
It overruled Sanders regarding that proposition and noted: “the other holding in Sanders, 4 that the State may not seek multiple enhancement of a defendant’s sentence on the basis of the same set of prior convictions, was recently cited with approval by this court in State v. Ruiz, 2006-1755 p. 12-13 (La.4/11/07), .” 5 Id.
State v. Camp 59 So. 3d 548 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
art. 841(A); State v. Ruiz, 06-1755 (La.4/11/07), ; State v. Knott, 05-2252 (La.5/5/06), .
State v. Turner 57 So. 3d 1209 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
art. 841(A); State v. Ruiz, 06-1755 (La.4/11/07), ; State v. Knott, 05-2252 (La.5/5/06), .
State v. Foster 23 So. 3d 885 La. 2009
4/11/07, pp. 12-13 (La.4/11/07), , and thus left in tact by Baker , that the state, may not use the same set of prior convictions to enhance the penalties provided for the underlying offense and then to enhance those enhanced penalties under the habitual offender provisions of La.R.S.
State of Louisiana v. Gregory John Ruiz La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
4/11/07), -89 (Footnote omitted).1 On March 20, 2008, a hearing was held before the trial court at which the State offered the transcript of witnesses’ testimonies from the original multiple offender hearing, along with exhibits from the prior proceeding.
State v. Ruiz 3 So. 3d 671 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Ruiz, 06-1755, pp. 12-13 (La.4/11/07), -89 (Footnote omitted).
State v. Dotie 1 So. 3d 833 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
State v. Ruiz, 2006-1755 (La.4/11/07), .
State v. Brister 996 So. 2d 73 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State of Louisiana v. Jessica Dawn Brister La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. Lilley 996 So. 2d 348 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
The state admits error but argues that defendant waived his right to challenge this error by failing to raise it in a timely manner through a motion to quash and/or by objecting at trial, citing State v. Ruiz, 06-1755 (La.04/11/07), .
State v. Shaw 987 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
State v. Ruiz, 06-1755, p. 7 (La.4/11/07), , citing State v. Womack-Grey, 00-1507, p. 1 (La.12/7/01), , quoting Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 180 , 117 S.Ct.
State v. Taylor 985 So. 2d 266 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
State v. Ruiz, 06-1755 (La.4/11/07), .
State v. Steward 975 So. 2d 829 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
1827, 1833 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999); United States v. Stevens, 223 F.3d 239, 244 (3rd Cir.2000); see also State v. Ruiz, XXXX-XXXX p. 6 (La.4/11/07), .
State of Louisiana v. Walter R. Cox, Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. Cox 974 So. 2d 891 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
App. 3 Cir. 5/24/06), , affirmed and remanded, 06-1755 (La.4/11/07), .
State v. Robertson 988 So. 2d 166 La. 2008
3 Cir. 5/24/06) , ; affirmed 06-1755 (La.4/11/07), , rehearing denied (La.06/01/07), we issued our opinion in State v. Skipper, 04-2137 (La.6/29/05), .
State v. Baker 970 So. 2d 948 La. 2008
However, we note that the other holding in Sanders , that the state may not seek multiple enhancement of a defendant's sentence on the basis of the same set of prior convictions, was recently cited with approval by this court in State v. Ruiz, XXXX-XXXX p. 12-13 (La.4/11/07), .
State v. Shaw 969 So. 2d 1233 La. 2007
State v. Ruiz, 06-1755, p. 5 (La.4/11/07), .
State v. Senegal 965 So. 2d 386 La. 2007
See State v. Ruiz, 06-1755 (La.4/11/07), .