Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Spencer, 243 So. 2d 793.

43 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Jamal Christopher Lacon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
The supreme court addressed the issue: So.2d 793 (1971), the defendant was brought into the courtroom in handcuffs before the voir dire examination of the prospective jurors.
State of Louisiana v. Raven Lamar Wiltz La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
The supreme court addressed the issue: So.2d 793 (1971), the defendant was brought into the courtroom in handcuffs before the voir dire examination of the prospective jurors.
State v. Kennedy 803 So. 2d 916 La. 2001
(1971), overruled on other grounds
State v. McKnight 539 So. 2d 952 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
(1971), overruled on other grounds (La.
State v. Welch 368 So. 2d 965 La. 1979
(1971); State v. Martin, 250 La.
Overruled State v. Swift 363 So. 2d 499 La. 1978
Five months later, on June 20, 1977, this court's decision in State v. Holmes, supra , , (1971); and State v. Martin, 250 La.
State v. Frentz 354 So. 2d 1007 La. 1978
(1971); State v. Montegut, 257 La.
Overruled State v. Holmes 347 So. 2d 221 La. 1977
(1971); State v. Martin, 250 La.
State v. Bennett 345 So. 2d 1129 La. 1977
State v. Clark 340 So. 2d 208 La. 1976
State v. Burnette 337 So. 2d 1096 La. 1976
See State v. Roberts, La., (1973); , (1971).
State v. Jones 332 So. 2d 466 La. 1976
State v. Clark 325 So. 2d 802 La. 1976
State v. Smith 322 So. 2d 197 La. 1975
State v. Nero 319 So. 2d 303 La. 1975
State v. Price 325 So. 2d 780 La. 1975
State v. Rowell 306 So. 2d 668 La. 1975
See State v. Pellerin, La., (1973); State v. Corbin, La., (1973); State v. Vassel, La., (1973); State v. Smith, La., (1973); , (1971).
Explained State v. Hicks 301 So. 2d 357 La. 1974
(1971) that crimes of "system" are those acts and offenses which are of like nature and exhibit like methods or plans of operation.
State v. Medlock 297 So. 2d 190 La. 1974
Gregory v. United States, 365 F.2d 203 (8th Cir. 1966); Hardin v. United States, 324 F.2d 553 (5th Cir. 1963); State v. Spencer, supra [ , (1971)]."
State v. Lawrence 294 So. 2d 476 La. 1974
State v. Roquemore, supra; State v. Grant & Dixon, La., , decided October 29, 1973; , (1971); State v. Montegut, 257 La.
State v. Roquemore 292 So. 2d 204 La. 1974
State v. Ackal 290 So. 2d 882 La. 1974
2066 , 32 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972); , (1971).
State v. Kinchen 290 So. 2d 860 La. 1974
(1971), the defendant was brought into the courtroom in handcuffs before the voir dire examination of the prospective jurors.
Explained State v. Thomas 290 So. 2d 690 La. 1974
(1971) that crimes of "system" are those acts and offenses which are of like nature and exhibit like methods or plans of operation.
State v. Harrison 291 So. 2d 782 La. 1974
See, State v. Grant and Dixon, supra; , (1971); State v. Montegut, 257 La.
State v. Lewis 288 So. 2d 348 La. 1974
State v. Grant 295 So. 2d 168 La. 1973
State v. Moore 278 So. 2d 781 La. 1973
(1971), evidence of other offenses is admissible when they are "of a like nature and exhibit like methods or plans of operation."
State v. Kaufman 278 So. 2d 86 La. 1973
(1971); State v. Campbell, 173 La.
Explained State v. Prieur 277 So. 2d 126 La. 1973
(1971), that crime of system are those acts and offenses which are of a like nature and exhibit like methods or plans of operation.
State v. Jordan 276 So. 2d 277 La. 1973
See, e. g., State v. Dotson, supra; State v. Morris, supra; State v. Bradford, supra; , (1971); State v. Kreller, supra; State v. Clack, 254 La.
State v. St. Amand 274 So. 2d 179 La. 1973
State v. Shaw 271 So. 2d 860 La. 1973
State v. Bell 268 So. 2d 610 La. 1972
“Considering this Bill of Exception along with Bill of Exception No. One indicates that the Ninth Judicial District Court restricts defendant’s rights of a fair trial and, therefore, it is submitted that reversible error has been committed.” , , 797 (1971) answers the contentions .advanced by defense counsel; it recites: “This court held under former R.S.
State v. Tennant 265 So. 2d 230 La. 1972
354 (E.D.La.1968); , (1971); State v. Boudoin, 257 La.
State v. Mehan 264 So. 2d 581 La. 1972
(1971), we held that “ * * * defense counsel who avails himself of the opportunity to make an opening statement under Code of Criminal Procedure Article 765(4) must confine his remarks to an explanation of the nature of the defense and the evidence by which he expects to establish it,” and that wide di
State v. Crockett 263 So. 2d 6 La. 1972
(1971); State v. Boudoin, 257 La.
State v. Isaac 260 So. 2d 302 La. 1972
(1971); State v. Montegut, 257 La.
State v. Dillard 260 So. 2d 675 La. 1972
State v. Morris 254 So. 2d 444 La. 1971
665 , (1971); , (1971); State v. Haddad, 221 La.
State v. Maiden 246 So. 2d 810 La. 1971
State v. Hurst 243 So. 2d 269 La. 1971
State v. Montegut 243 So. 2d 791 La. 1971
decided this day; State v. Wilde, 214 La.