Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Schoonover, 211 So. 2d 273.

22 citing documents.

Distinguished State v. Shepard 468 So. 2d 594 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
(1968) for the proposition that lengthy statements of particular phases of law should not be expounded to the jurors on voir dire.
State v. Nettleton 367 So. 2d 755 La. 1979
State v. Bennett 341 So. 2d 847 La. 1976
State v. Fallon 290 So. 2d 273 La. 1974
art. 786, 787; , (1968), cert.
State v. Jones 282 So. 2d 422 La. 1973
State v. Taylor 282 So. 2d 491 La. 1973
715 , (1972); , (1968), cert.
State v. Prieur 277 So. 2d 126 La. 1973
665 , (1971); , (1968); 29 La.L.Rev.
State v. Sheppard 268 So. 2d 590 La. 1972
(1968): ‘The extent to which counsel may examine jurors on their voir dire rests largely within the discretion of the trial judge.
State v. Bell 268 So. 2d 610 La. 1972
Any discussion of the-law with a prospective juror can only take several minutes; however, a misinterpretation of the law by a prospective juror can cost the defendant thirty-five years imprisonment.” Article 786 of the Code of' Criminal Procedure provides that the scope of the voir dire examination of prospective-jurors is within the discretion of the trial judge, , (1968), we said: “The-extent to which counsel may examine jurors oil their voir dire rests largely within the discretion of the tr
State v. Cryer 263 So. 2d 895 La. 1972
389 , (1969); , (1968), cert.
State v. Harper 257 So. 2d 381 La. 1972
“* * * this practice tends to facilitate attempts to commit the juror’s vote in advance of deliberation.
State v. Biagas 255 So. 2d 77 La. 1971
State v. Jackson 254 So. 2d 259 La. 1971
(1968); State v. White, 254 La.
Followed State v. Ford 254 So. 2d 457 La. 1971
State v. Dell 249 So. 2d 118 La. 1971
State v. Square 244 So. 2d 200 La. 1971
art. 797 (1967); , (1968), cert.
State v. Caston 236 So. 2d 800 La. 1970
Since, , , “Louisiana has accorded a jury trial to the accused in the instant case * * *” and since no claim is here made that the jury was not impartial, it would seem that a clause would have to be added to the Sixth Amendment, by way of construction, so that it would then provide for a trial by an impartial
State v. Kreller 233 So. 2d 906 La. 1970
he inquiry, testimony may be offered of such acts, conduct or declarations of the accused as tend to establish such knowledge or intent and where the offense is one of a system, evidence is admissible to prove the continuity of the offense, and the commission of similar offenses for the purpose of showing guilty knowledge and intent, but not to prove the offense charged.” , .
State v. Fink 231 So. 2d 360 La. 1970
Recently, , , this Court rejected an identical contention.
State v. Johnson 230 So. 2d 825 La. 1970
Herein, therefore, , , which upheld the ruling of the trial judge refusing to charge the jury that, “The verdict of the Jury, either to acquit the defendant or to convict him [armed robbery] must be by the unanimous vote of the entire jury,” is applicable.
State v. White 223 So. 2d 843 La. 1969
“We must await a clear exposition of this point by the Federal Supreme Court before we can decide whether a unanimous verdict is a requirement of the Sixth Amendment of the Federal Constitution which is obligatory on the States.” , .
State v. Hochenedel 217 So. 2d 392 La. 1968