Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Reese, 194 So. 2d 729.

44 citing documents.

  • State v. Diggins 126 So. 3d 770 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    4 Cir. 3/31/04), ; , -34 (1967); State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99), .
  • State v. Yochim 496 So. 2d 596 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • State v. Edwards 412 So. 2d 1029 La. 1982
  • State v. Simmons 390 So. 2d 1317 La. 1980
    (1967); State v. Foster, 150 La.
  • State v. Robinson 353 So. 2d 1001 La. 1977
    See State v. Ballard, La., (1976); State v. Wilkerson, La., (1976); , (1967).
  • State v. Durr 343 So. 2d 1004 La. 1977
  • State v. Vincent 338 So. 2d 1376 La. 1976
  • State v. Miles 339 So. 2d 735 La. 1976
    15:447, 448; State v. Batiste, La., (1975); , (1967).
  • State v. Williams 331 So. 2d 467 La. 1976
  • State v. Hunt 310 So. 2d 563 La. 1975
    (1967) the Court ruled that the fact that a prospective juror is a deputy sheriff does not in and of itself disqualify him from jury service.
  • State v. Rester 309 So. 2d 321 La. 1975
  • State v. Brown 302 So. 2d 290 La. 1974
    15:447, 15:448; State v. Morgan, supra; , (1967).
  • State v. Pace 301 So. 2d 323 La. 1974
    Recently, , (1967), we stated: "Although the courts have not found it easy to determine just when a declaration is admissible as a part of the res gestae, each case depending upon its particular circumstances, the tendency is to extend rather than narrow the scope of the introduction of evidence as a part of the r
  • State v. Kibby 294 So. 2d 196 La. 1974
  • State v. Washington 292 So. 2d 234 La. 1974
    475 , (1972); , (1967), cert.
  • State v. Washington 292 So. 2d 234 La. 1974
    475 , (1972); , (1967), cert.
  • State v. Stevenson 292 So. 2d 488 La. 1974
    475 , (1972); , (1967), cert.
  • State v. Edwards 287 So. 2d 518 La. 1973
    434 , (1968); , (1967); State v. Clifton, 247 La.
  • State v. Womack 283 So. 2d 708 La. 1973
    475 , (1972); , (1967), cert., den., 389 U.S. 996 , 88 S.Ct.
  • State v. Richmond 284 So. 2d 317 La. 1973
    625 , (1972); State v. Square, supra; , , cert.
  • State v. Newman 283 So. 2d 756 La. 1973
  • State v. Richmond 278 So. 2d 17 La. 1973
    15:447, 15:448; , (1967).
  • State v. Scott 278 So. 2d 121 La. 1973
    434 , (1968); , (1967); State v. Clifton, 247 La.
  • State v. Jordan 276 So. 2d 277 La. 1973
    719 , (1967); , (1967); State v. Evans, 249 La.
  • State v. Enloe 276 So. 2d 283 La. 1973
  • State v. St. Amand 274 So. 2d 179 La. 1973
    1 , (1971); , (1967); State v. Madison, 261 La.
  • State v. Rollins 271 So. 2d 519 La. 1973
    481 , (1968); , (1967); cert.
  • State v. Curry 270 So. 2d 484 La. 1972
    (1967); State v. Raymond, 258 La.
  • Doyle v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 266 So. 2d 541 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    481 , (1968); , (1967); Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57 , 82 S.Ct.
  • State v. Daniels 263 So. 2d 859 La. 1972
  • State v. Bailey 261 So. 2d 583 La. 1972
    (1967), the court found the trial judge correct in ruling that a potential juror who was a deputy sheriff could not for this reason be challenged for cause.
  • State v. Higginbotham 261 So. 2d 638 La. 1972
    854 , (1970); , (1967), cert.
  • State v. Bailey 261 So. 2d 583 La. 1972
    (1967), the court found the trial judge correct in ruling that a potential juror who was a deputy sheriff could not for this reason be challenged for cause.
  • State v. Isaac 260 So. 2d 302 La. 1972
  • State v. Shaffer 257 So. 2d 121 La. 1971
  • State v. Ford 254 So. 2d 457 La. 1971
  • State v. Raymond 245 So. 2d 335 La. 1971
  • State v. Sinclair 245 So. 2d 365 La. 1971
    481 , ; , ; Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57 , 82 S.Ct.
  • State v. Pratt 233 So. 2d 883 La. 1970
    (1967).” In Hoyt v. State of Florida, supra, the United States Supreme Court considered a Florida statute similar to Article 402, supra.
  • State v. Kreller 233 So. 2d 906 La. 1970
  • State v. Copeland 229 So. 2d 710 La. 1969
    the venire chosen for the trial of these cases * * * were persons of the same race as the defendants, and in fact, three persons of that race were selected to sit on the jury of twelve.” Counsel’s further argument that defendant was also prejudiced by the exclusion of women from the jury solely because of their sex 2 , , by this court, citing as authority the case of Hoyt v. State of Florida, 368 U.S. 57 , 82 S.Ct.
  • State v. Whitfield 219 So. 2d 493 La. 1969
  • State v. Lampkin 218 So. 2d 289 La. 1969
  • State v. Comeaux 211 So. 2d 620 La. 1968