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. Smith, 45 So. 2d 617.

22 citing documents.

  • State Of Louisiana v. David Brown La. 2022
    1059, 1078, (1956) (McCaleb., J., dissenting) (“It is not proper for counsel to interrogate 69 prospective jurors concerning their reaction to evidence which might be received at trial.”); -619 (1950) (“Hypothetical questions and questions of law are not permitted in the examination of jurors which call for a prejudgment of any supposed case on the facts.”).
  • State Of Louisiana v. David H. Brown (Parish of Lafourche) Convictions Affirmed; Death Sentences Reversed; Case Remanded For … La. 2021
    1059, 1078, (1956) (“It is not proper for counsel to interrogate prospective jurors concerning their reaction to evidence which might be received at trial.”); –47, –19 (1950) (“[H]ypothetical questions and questions of law are not permitted in the examination of jurors which call for a pre -judgment of any supposed case on the facts.”); Ball, 00-2277, p. 23, 824 So.2d at 1109–10 (trial court correctly forbids questions the evident purpose of which
  • State of Louisiana v. Lee Turner, Jr. 263 So. 3d 337 La. 2018
    1956) (“It is not proper for counsel to interrogate prospective jurors concerning their reaction to evidence which might be received at trial.”); -19 (La.
  • State v. Munson 115 So. 3d 6 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State v. Kirk 98 So. 3d 934 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    1059 , (1956); , (1950) (“hypothetical questions and questions of law are not permitted in the examination of jurors which call for a pre-judgment of any supposed case on the facts”).
  • State v. Parker 76 So. 3d 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    291 , (1972); , (1950) (hypothetical questions and questions of law are not permitted in the examination of jurors which call for a pre-judgment of any supposed case on the facts).
  • State v. Andrews 61 So. 3d 121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    1059 , (1956); , (1950) (“hypothetical questions and questions of law are not permitted in the examination of jurors which call for a pre-judgment of any supposed case on the facts”).
  • State v. Holmes 5 So. 3d 42 La. 2008
    291 , (1972); , (1950) (hypothetical questions and questions of law are not permitted in the examination of jurors which call for a pre-judgment of any supposed case on the facts).
  • State v. Taylor 875 So. 2d 58 La. 2004
    1059 , (1956); , (1950) ("hypothetical questions and questions of law are not permitted in the examination of jurors which call for a pre-judgment of any supposed case on the facts").
  • State v. Ball 824 So. 2d 1089 La. 2002
    291 , (1972)("Voir dire examination is designed to test the competence and impartiality of prospective jurors and may not serve to pry into their opinions concerning evidence to be offered at trial"); , (1950)("hypothetical questions and questions of law are not permitted in the examination of jurors which call for a pre-judgment of any supposed case on the facts").
  • State v. Thibodeaux 750 So. 2d 916 La. 1999
  • State v. McKoin 485 So. 2d 215 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    (1950); State v. Raymond, 258 La.
  • State v. Clark 325 So. 2d 802 La. 1976
  • State v. Conrad 304 So. 2d 318 La. 1974
  • State v. Sylvester 298 So. 2d 807 La. 1974
    1105 , (1968); , (1950); State v. Doucet, 177 La.
  • State v. Taylor 282 So. 2d 491 La. 1973
    State v. Richey, supra, , , from which it quoted the following language: "Moreover, hypothetical questions and questions of law are not permitted in the examination of jurors which call for a pre-judgment of any supposed case on the facts."
  • State v. Square 244 So. 2d 200 La. 1971
    (1950), we said, “ * * * hypothetical questions and questions of law are not permitted in the examination of jurors which call for a prejudgment of any supposed case on the facts.” These bills are without merit.
  • State v. Lewis 199 So. 2d 907 La. 1967
    724 , ; , ; State v. Carter, 206 La.
  • State v. Ferguson 124 So. 2d 558 La. 1960
    691 , , and authorities there cited; , .
  • State v. Faciane 99 So. 2d 333 La. 1957
  • State v. Palmer 80 So. 2d 374 La. 1955
    relied upon by the defense, can be readily distinguished from and has no analogy to the case at bar.
  • State v. Morris 62 So. 2d 649 La. 1952
    999 , , nor are hypothetical questions or questions of law, which call for prejudgment of any- supposed case on the facts, , .