Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. White, 153 So. 2d 401.

28 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Jaylon K. Brown La. 2024
State Of Louisiana v. Jaylon K. Brown La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana v. Furlonzo R. Moran La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2022
State of Louisiana v. Desmond Kemon Orphey La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
It is at that point that “the accused has a right to have the particular jurors 6 selected to try him and decide his fate, save in cases of death, illness or any other cause which renders a juror unfit or disqualified to perform this duty[.]” (1963).
State of Louisiana v. David Billy Parker, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
So.2d 401 (1963), found the facts to be that a juror, on the fifth day of a six-day trial, advised the trial judge that he thought he was 2 disqualified.
State v. Parker 258 So. 3d 883 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
The Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. White , , (1963), found the facts to be that a juror, on the fifth day of a six-day trial, advised the trial judge that he thought he was disqualified.
State of Louisiana v. Ronald Pete La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
It is at this point that “the accused has a right to have the particular jurors selected to try him and decide his fate, save in cases of death, illness or any other cause which renders a juror unfit or disqualified to perform this duty[.]” So.2d 401, 620 (1963).
State v. Pete 134 So. 3d 196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
It is at this point that “the accused has a right to have the particular jurors selected to try him and decide his fate, save in cases of death, illness or any other cause which renders a juror unfit or disqualified to perform this duty!.]” , [413] (1963).
State of Louisiana v. Marcus Deangelo Tennors La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
found the facts to be that a juror, on the fifth day of a six-day trial, advised the trial judge that he thought he was disqualified.
State v. Tennors 923 So. 2d 823 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
(1963), found the facts to be that a juror, on the fifth day of a six-day trial, advised the trial judge that he thought he was disqualified.
State v. Turner 859 So. 2d 911 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
(1963) ([O]nce a juror has been qualified as competent to serve and swornall in the presence of the defendanthe cannot thereafter be disqualified as incompetent to serve unless the defendant is present.).
State v. Williamson 805 So. 2d 1235 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
art. 831, subsection A(3) provides that a defendant charged with a felony shall be present at the calling, examination, challenging, empaneling and swearing of the jury and “at any subsequent proceedings for the discharge of the jury or juror.” , (1963) (“[0]nee a juror has been qualified as competent to serve and sworn— all in the presence of the defendant — he cannot thereafter be disqualified as incompetent to serve unless the defendant is present”) (footnote omitted); (trial judg
State v. Hampton 737 So. 2d 699 La. 1999
(1963) ("[O]nce a juror has been qualified as competent to serve and swornall in the presence of the defendant he cannot thereafter be disqualified as incompetent to serve unless the defendant is present.") (footnote omitted); (trial judge
State v. Wicken 683 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
2092 , 104 L.Ed.2d 655 (1989); , (La.
State v. Prout 672 So. 2d 933 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
State v. May 654 So. 2d 829 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
the Louisiana Supreme Court found the trial judge erred in not sustaining defense objections to remarks in the prosecutor’s opening statement that belittled the defendant and his defense and that informed the jury that the prosecutor knew the defendant was guilty.
State v. Spencer 446 So. 2d 1197 La. 1984
State v. Clay 441 So. 2d 1227 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Copeland 419 So. 2d 899 La. 1982
This Court spoke clearly on the issue of a trial judge's determining the competency of a juror to continue service on a jury once that juror has been impaneled, , (1963): [T]he ex parte hearing in the judge's chambers was a clear violation of the well-settled rule universally obtaining that an accused must be present at each and every stage of the trial from arraignment to sentence.
State v. Nettleton 367 So. 2d 755 La. 1979
In brief, , in which a juror, suspecting that he may be disqualified after five days of trial, asked to talk to the trial *760 judge.
State v. Cass 356 So. 2d 396 La. 1977
(1963); State v. Willie, 130 La.
State v. Buggage 351 So. 2d 95 La. 1977
(1963); State v. Willie, 130 La.
State v. Rounsavall 337 So. 2d 190 La. 1976
(1963); State v. Willie, 130 La.
State v. Haynes 291 So. 2d 771 La. 1974
art. 766, in its prejudicial and argumentative nature, , (1963), and that the deliberate attempt of the prosecution to question a member of the defense staff on what the defendant had told him, in violation of the attorney-client privilege, and the belittling before the jury of defense counsel for asserting it [1] , is not compatible with the standards of fa
State v. Brown 288 So. 2d 339 La. 1974
State v. Himel 257 So. 2d 670 La. 1972
807 , (1957); , (1963); and others have held that its purpose is to inform the court, the jury, and the defendant, State v. Jones, 230 La.
State v. Square 244 So. 2d 200 La. 1971
State v. McGuire 225 So. 2d 215 La. 1969