Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Bell, 53 So. 3d 437.

21 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Tyson Cornelison La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
11/30/10), writ denied, 564 U.S. 1025, 131 S. Ct. 3035, 180 L. Ed. 2d 856 (2011) (citing State v. Hegwood, 345 So.
State Of Louisiana v. Donovan Darville La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana v. Billy Ray Ford, Jr. La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
Rev. Errol Victor, Sr. Versus State of Louisiana La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
11/30/10), cert denied, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct.
State of Louisiana Versus Perry Bell La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
State of Louisiana v. Coca L. Edwards, Jr. La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2021
State of Louisiana v. Anthony Scott Tubbs La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
State of Louisiana v. Eddie Hilliard, Jr. La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
State v. Speaks 204 So. 3d 1167 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2016
State v. Odums 210 So. 3d 850 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
State v. Matthews 200 So. 3d 895 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Bell, 2009-0199 (La.11/30/10), ; La.
State v. McCorvey 187 So. 3d 41 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
However, this principle has typieally rested on Faretta ’s silence on the issue rather than any positive statement from the United States Supreme Court.” State v. Bell, 2009-0199, p. 17, n. 14 (La.11/30/10), (internal citations’'bmitted).
State v. Ferguson 181 So. 3d 120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Assertion of that right “must also be clear and unequivocal.” State v. Bell, 2009-0199 (La.11/30/10), , cert.
State v. Lloyd 161 So. 3d 879 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
idence,” the defendant has the burden of showing that “(1) the new evidence was discovered after trial, (2) the failure to discover the evidence at the time of the trial was not caused by lack of diligence, (3) the evidence is material to the issues at trial, and (4) the evidence is of such a nature that it would probably have produced a different verdict.” State v. Bell, 2009-0199 (La.11/30/10), ; La.
State v. Victor 167 So. 3d 118 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2014
Assertion of that right “must also be clear and unequivocal.” State v. Bell, 09-0199 (La.11/30/10); , cert.
State v. Smith 152 So. 3d 218 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
State v. Bell, 2009-0199 (La.11/30/10), , cert.
State v. Elzy 109 So. 3d 57 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Assertion of that right “must also be clear and unequivocal.” State v. Bell, 09-199, p. 17 (La.11/30/10), , cert.
State v. Hayes 107 So. 3d 668 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
This amendment has been interpreted to “impl[y] a right of self-representation.” State v. Bell, 09-0199, p. 13 (La.11/30/10), , citing, Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 822 , 95 S.Ct.
State of Louisiana v. Rudolph Hamilton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Abdul 94 So. 3d 801 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Assertion of that right “must also be clear and unequivocal.” State v. Bell, 09-0199, p. 17 (La.11/30/10), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Gregory Dwayne Harrell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012