DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Kunzman, 741 So. 2d 112.

14 citing documents.

  • State v. Ferguson 54 So. 3d 152 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    State v. Kunzman, 31,976, p. 10 (La.App.2d Cir.5/5/99), .
  • State in the Interest of J. L. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    2 Cir. 5/5/99), the victim was repeatedly hit with “some kind of rubber thing with lead in it or something.” At trial, witnesses called the object a “slapjack” and a “blackjack.” On appeal, the defendant contended that the “slapjack” was not a dangerous weapon; the second circuit disagreed.
  • State v. Braziel 968 So. 2d 853 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    State v. Kunzman, 31,976 (La.App.2d Cir.5/5/99), .
  • State v. Henry 966 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    State v. Kunzman, 31,976 (La.App.2d Cir.5/5/99), ; State v. Wuneburger, 03-490 (La.App.
  • State v. Dauzart 960 So. 2d 1079 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
  • State v. Gipson 942 So. 2d 1184 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
  • State v. Disotell 930 So. 2d 359 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    2 Cir. 5/5/99), ; see also State v. Walker, 32,342 (La.App.
  • State v. Robinson 930 So. 2d 345 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    App.2d Cir.5/5/99), ; State v. Walker, 32,342 (La.App.2d Cir.9/24/99), , writ denied, XXXX-XXXX (La.11/13/00), .
  • State v. Pugh 911 So. 2d 898 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
  • State v. Gipson 850 So. 2d 973 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    art. 702; State v. Kunzman, 31,976 (La.App.2d Cir.5/5/99), ; State v. Esteen, 02-1241 (La.App.5 Cir.4/29/03), .
  • State v. Frazier 843 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
  • State v. Munholland 770 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); State v. Kunzman, 31,976 (La.App.2d Cir.5/5/99), .
  • State v. Dickerson 760 So. 2d 573 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    State v. Kunzman, 31,976 (La.App.2d Cir.5/5/99), .
  • State v. Walker 747 So. 2d 133 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    2nd Cir. 5/5/99), , addressed the same issue presented here and determined that a guilty plea in a predicate offense could not be used as the basis for an habitual offender charge where the defendant was not advised of his right to a trial by jury.