Cited by

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

66 citing documents.

State v. Curry 263 So. 2d 36 La. 1972
610 , (1961); , (1961); State v. Paternostro, 219 La.
State v. Crittle 268 So. 2d 604 La. 1972
A’ prospective juror, before being examined, shall be sworn to answer truthfully questions asked him relative to his qualifications to serve as a juror in the case.” , (1961), we said: “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 th
State v. Crittle 268 So. 2d 604 La. 1972
(1961), we said: "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 challengesince each party has the r
State v. Copeland 229 So. 2d 710 La. 1969
2d 128 ; , ; State v. Fletcher, 236 La.
State v. Vernon 208 So. 2d 690 La. 1968
610 , (hardened criminals) ; , (primitive beast of the jungle) ; State v. Davis, 178 La.
State v. Caldwell 206 So. 2d 492 La. 1968
State v. Rideau 193 So. 2d 264 La. 1966
The trial judge permitted the defense to ask the prospective juror whether he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan ( , ) and whether any member of his family was a member.
State v. Ragsdale 187 So. 2d 427 La. 1966
15:390; , ; State v. Bickham, 239 La.
State v. Phillips 181 So. 2d 753 La. 1966
State v. Oliver 174 So. 2d 509 La. 1965
nation of a juror is to ascertain his qualifications to serve in the trial of the case “and the examination shall be limited to that purpose.” Although considerable latitude must be accorded to defense counsel in the voir dire examination so that he may elicit information necessary for him to intelligently exercise the right of peremptory challenge, as well as challenge for cause ( , , on rehearing), the judge has the right, indeed, the duty under R.S.
State v. Oliver 174 So. 2d 509 La. 1965
Although considerable latitude must be accorded to defense counsel in the voir dire examination so that he may elicit information necessary for him to intelligently exercise the right of peremptory challenge, as well as challenge for cause ( , , on rehearing), the judge has the right, indeed, the duty under R.S.
State v. Odom 169 So. 2d 909 La. 1964
600 , and *86 State v. Hills, (on rehearing) , .
State v. Sercovich 165 So. 2d 301 La. 1964
610 , (1961); , (1961); State v. Paternostro, 219 La.
State v. Progue 144 So. 2d 352 La. 1962
cited and relied on by counsel for the defendants, is inapposite.
State v. Scott 141 So. 2d 389 La. 1962
State v. Brown 136 So. 2d 394 La. 1962
is apposite to the instant prosecution.