DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Hills, 129 So. 2d 12.

66 citing documents.

  • State v. Pierce 131 So. 3d 136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    (1960), still provides excellent guidance as to the scope of voir dire examination: ...
  • State v. Thomas 680 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    State v. Lee, 559 So.2d at 1316 ; State v. Hayes, 364 So.2d at 924 ; , (1961) (on rehearing).
  • State v. Hall 616 So. 2d 664 La. 1993
    State v. Lee, 559 So.2d at 1316 ; State v. Hayes, 364 So.2d at 924 ; , (1961) (on rehearing).
  • State v. Velez 588 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
    (1960) (on rehearing), in support of their argument that where the sole defense is misidentification, the trial court should give a special charge on the subject.
  • State v. Lee 559 So. 2d 1310 La. 1990
  • State v. Livings 548 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • State v. Jarreau 476 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    The defendant must be given wide latitude in the exercise of this substantial right, and pertinent inquires should be allowed if they can possibly show grounds for a challenge for cause, or if they will enable counsel to make intelligent use of peremptory challenges.
  • State v. Sexton 477 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Shepard 468 So. 2d 594 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
    (1961): [T]he scope of inquiry is best governed by a liberal discretion on the part of the court so that if there is any likelihood that some prejudice is in the juror’s mind which will even subconsciously effect his decision, this may be uncovered.
  • State v. Williams 457 So. 2d 610 La. 1984
    1978)] supra; State v. Hills, [ , (1961)] supra.
  • State v. Anthony 427 So. 2d 1155 La. 1983
  • State v. Frith 412 So. 2d 1000 La. 1982
    1977); , (1961) (on rehearing), and pertinent inquiries should be allowed if they can possibly show grounds for a challenge for cause or if they will enable counsel to make intelligent use of peremptory challenges.
  • State v. St. Amant 413 So. 2d 1312 La. 1981
  • State v. Williams 397 So. 2d 1287 La. 1981
  • State v. Claiborne 397 So. 2d 486 La. 1981
    1978); , (1961), the right to address, hear and observe the veniremen directly and as individuals, and the right to examine a prospective juror challenged for cause by the prosecution in order to demonstrate his impartiality.
  • State v. Hawkins 376 So. 2d 943 La. 1979
    we commented: " , (1961) (on rehearing), do, indeed, respect the constitutional mandate of full and effective voir dire, notwithstanding Code of Criminal Procedure article 786's grant to the trial judge of latitude in restricting voir dire examination."
  • State v. Williams 375 So. 2d 364 La. 1979
  • State v. Lewis 367 So. 2d 1155 La. 1979
    (on rehearing); , (1961).
  • State v. Kelly 367 So. 2d 832 La. 1979
    (1961) (on rehearing) do, indeed, respect the constitutional mandate of full and effective voir dire, notwithstanding Code of Criminal Procedure article 786's grant to the trial judge of latitude in restricting voir dire examination.
  • State v. Dixon 365 So. 2d 1310 La. 1978
  • State v. Hayes 364 So. 2d 923 La. 1978
    The defendant must be given wide latitude in the exercise of this substantial right, , (1961) (on rehearing), and pertinent inquiries should be allowed if they can possibly show grounds for a challenge for cause, or if they will enable counsel to make intelligent use of peremptory challenges.
  • State v. Boen 362 So. 2d 519 La. 1978
    (1961), this court explained the principle in the following manner: "It is a general view as to voir dire examination that the defendant in a criminal prosecution is entitled to make reasonable and pertinent inquiries of the prospective juror so that he may exercise intelligently and wisely his right of
  • State v. Jackson 358 So. 2d 1263 La. 1978
  • State v. McCloud 357 So. 2d 1132 La. 1978
  • State v. Elzie 351 So. 2d 1174 La. 1977
  • State v. Schouest 351 So. 2d 462 La. 1977
  • State v. Holmes 347 So. 2d 221 La. 1977
    (1961): "It is a general view as to voir dire examination that the defendant in a criminal prosecution is entitled to make reasonable and pertinent inquiries of the prospective juror so that he may exercise intelligently and wisely his right of peremptory challenge— since each party has the right to
  • State v. Taylor 347 So. 2d 172 La. 1977
    State v. Lane, La., (1974); , (1961).
  • State v. May 339 So. 2d 764 La. 1976
  • State v. Young 337 So. 2d 1196 La. 1976
    (1961), rev'd on rehearing on other grounds; State v. Nicolosi, 228 La.
  • State v. Roach 338 So. 2d 621 La. 1976
    Defendant, , (1961), argues that these questions were designed to aid him in intelligent use of his peremptory challenges.
  • State v. Williams 331 So. 2d 467 La. 1976
    (1961), allowed testimony of the victim's landlord regarding a statement made by the victim to him more than a half hour after the attack.
  • State v. Monroe 329 So. 2d 193 La. 1976
    (1961): "It is a general view as to voir dire examination that the defendant in a criminal prosecution is entitled to make reasonable and pertinent inquiries of the prospective juror so that he may exercise intelligently and wisely his right of peremptory challenge—since each party has the right to
  • State v. Nix 327 So. 2d 301 La. 1975
  • State v. Hodgeson 305 So. 2d 421 La. 1974
    [11] , (1961); State v. Scott, 237 La.
  • State v. Conrad 304 So. 2d 318 La. 1974
    At that time, , (1961), counsel in criminal cases were allowed a wide latitude in voir dire examination, and "the scope of inquiry is best governed by a liberal discretion on the part of the court."
  • State v. Lane 302 So. 2d 880 La. 1974
    (1961), reversed on re-hearing on other grounds; State v. Walker, 204 La.
  • State v. Pace 301 So. 2d 323 La. 1974
    15:447, 15:448; State v. Morgan, supra; State v. Reese, supra; , (1960); People v. Bonneau, supra; Drayton v. State, 138 Tex.Crim.
  • State v. Bradford 298 So. 2d 781 La. 1974
  • State v. Chapman 298 So. 2d 753 La. 1974
  • State v. Knight 296 So. 2d 800 La. 1974
  • State v. Morgan 296 So. 2d 286 La. 1974
    [1] , (1960) where the court allowed the testimony of the landlord of the victim regarding a statement made by the *289 victim to him within a half hour after the attack.
  • State v. Roquemore 292 So. 2d 204 La. 1974
  • State v. Fallon 290 So. 2d 273 La. 1974
  • Overruled State v. Corbin 285 So. 2d 234 La. 1973
    1094 , (1971) were overruled on this point); , (1961).
  • State v. Jones 282 So. 2d 422 La. 1973
    In State v. Crittle, we reversed a conviction when the trial court refused to permit the defense to examine prospective jurors on the subject of the presumption of innocence, , .
  • State v. Lee 281 So. 2d 123 La. 1973
  • State v. Sheppard 268 So. 2d 590 La. 1972
  • State v. Bell 268 So. 2d 610 La. 1972
  • State v. Dunn 267 So. 2d 193 La. 1972