DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Richey, 249 So. 2d 143.

55 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. James Lyndal Foster La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    State v. Wilder, 09-2322 (La.
  • State v. Foster 59 So. 3d 495 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    (1971); State v. Wilder, 09-2322 (La.12/18/09), .
  • Distinguished State v. Wilder 24 So. 3d 197 La. 2009
    The ap *198 , (1971), distinguishable in that the motions to suppress in Richey were extremely broad and vague.
  • State v. Mims 501 So. 2d 962 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Graham 486 So. 2d 1139 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    State v. Richey, 258 La.1094, (1971); writ denied, 464 U.S. 1005 , 104 S.Ct.
  • State v. Rogers 476 So. 2d 942 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
    (1971) to support their interpretation of Art. 703 E. In Richey the court held that no hearing was required on a motion to suppress which sought to suppress "any and all physical and testimonial evidence of every kind, nature and description."
  • State v. Thomas 467 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • State v. Shepard 468 So. 2d 594 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
    (1971) for the proposition that hypothetical questions and questions which call for prejudgment of any supposed set of facts are not permissible on voir dire.
  • State v. Tanner 432 So. 2d 1186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Chapman 436 So. 2d 451 La. 1983
    153 , , Russell v. United States, 408 F.2d 1280 (D.C.Cir.1969); Bates v. United States, 405 F.2d 1104 (D.C.Cir.
  • State v. Stewart 357 So. 2d 1111 La. 1978
  • State v. Cass 356 So. 2d 936 La. 1977
  • State v. McZeal 352 So. 2d 592 La. 1977
  • State v. Williams 349 So. 2d 286 La. 1977
  • State v. Sims 346 So. 2d 664 La. 1977
    State v. Holmes, La., (1974); , (1971); State v. Hall, 257 La.
  • State v. Frank 344 So. 2d 1039 La. 1977
  • State v. Williams 341 So. 2d 370 La. 1976
  • State v. Russell 334 So. 2d 398 La. 1976
    161 , (1971); , (1971); United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct.
  • State v. Maduell 326 So. 2d 820 La. 1976
  • State v. Peevy 321 So. 2d 324 La. 1975
  • State v. Sneed 316 So. 2d 372 La. 1975
    (1971), which held notice must be given of the fact of the statement, but not of its content.
  • State v. Bland 310 So. 2d 622 La. 1975
    161 , (1971); , (1971); United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct.
  • State v. Williams 310 So. 2d 528 La. 1975
    State v. Amphy, supra; , ; United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct.
  • State v. Cormier 303 So. 2d 743 La. 1974
    159 (1971); State v. Henderson, 253 La.
  • State v. Graves 301 So. 2d 864 La. 1974
    161 , (1972); , (1971); State v. Allen, 251 La.
  • State v. Selman 300 So. 2d 467 La. 1974
    161 , (1971); , (1971); United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct.
  • State v. Payton 294 So. 2d 211 La. 1974
    161 , , supra; , ; United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct.
  • State v. McAllister 285 So. 2d 197 La. 1973
  • State v. Thornton 284 So. 2d 753 La. 1973
  • State v. Finnice 285 So. 2d 187 La. 1973
  • State v. Corbin 285 So. 2d 234 La. 1973
    (1971); State v. Henry, 197 La.
  • State v. Moseley 284 So. 2d 749 La. 1973
    161 , (1971); , (1971); United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct.
  • State v. Newman 283 So. 2d 756 La. 1973
    State v. Amphy, supra; , ; United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct.
  • State v. Jones 282 So. 2d 422 La. 1973
    (1971); State v. Sheppard, 263 La.
  • State v. Drumgo 283 So. 2d 463 La. 1973
    897 , (1972); , (1971); State v. Amphy, 259 La.
  • State v. Taylor 282 So. 2d 491 La. 1973
    (1971); State v. Sheppard, 263 La.
  • State v. Lee 281 So. 2d 123 La. 1973
    338 (1924) , (1971) as authority.
  • State v. Richmond 278 So. 2d 17 La. 1973
  • State v. Neal 275 So. 2d 765 La. 1973
  • State v. McCauley 272 So. 2d 335 La. 1973
    [ , ] "The prejudice caused by the refusal to allow these particular questions is clear in that it denied the defendant an opportunity to discover a ground for a challenge for cause or preemptory challenge.
  • State v. Rose 271 So. 2d 863 La. 1973
    Further, , (1971) to the effect that this Court held that the refusal in an armed robbery prosecution to give requested instruction pertaining to the identification of accused as perpetrator of the crime was not error, in that instruction was given that the state had the burden of proving every element of the cri
  • State v. Sheppard 268 So. 2d 590 La. 1972
  • State v. Bell 268 So. 2d 610 La. 1972
    [ , ] “BY- THE COURT: (Indistinct) ' instruction being given to the prospective jurors, before we go into this kind of stuff, Mr. Gravel.
  • State v. Smith 267 So. 2d 200 La. 1972
  • State v. Foster 267 So. 2d 188 La. 1972
    (1971); State v. Square, 257 La.
  • State v. Williams 263 So. 2d 306 La. 1972
    436 , (1971); , (1971); State v. Anderson, 261 La.
  • State v. Crittle 268 So. 2d 604 La. 1972
    uror’s beliefs on essential areas may be when the trial judge reads some aspects of the law to the panel of 100 jurors, three days before the trial of the case, when the defendant or his counsel were not even present in the courtroom.” , (1971).
  • State v. Higginbotham 261 So. 2d 638 La. 1972
  • State v. Crittle 268 So. 2d 604 La. 1972
  • State v. Smith 260 So. 2d 641 La. 1972
    (1971); State v. Amphy, 259 La.