Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Frezal, 278 So. 2d 64.

32 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Cassetti Dewayne Brown, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
State v. Peralta 807 So. 2d 967 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
[5] *977 (La.1973), the defendant expressly stated that he wished to leave the courtroom during the testimony of a particular witness.
State v. George 768 So. 2d 748 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
State v. Eisbruckner 688 So. 2d 39 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
State v. McClintock 535 So. 2d 1231 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Foster 437 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
State v. Champion 412 So. 2d 1048 La. 1982
1978); and further, at 1304, citing State v. Lee, supra , The right of the defendant to counsel of his choice must be exercised at a reasonable time, in a reasonable manner, and at an appropriate stage within the criminal justice system of which it is a part.
State v. Johnson 389 So. 2d 1302 La. 1980
While a defendant's right to the counsel of his choice is firmly established in our law, that right may not be used to obstruct the orderly procedure in our courts nor to interfere with the fair administration of justice, and this Court has long so ruled: State v. St.
State v. Lee 364 So. 2d 1024 La. 1978
State v. Kelly 362 So. 2d 1071 La. 1978
State v. Hamilton, 249 La.
State v. MacKie 352 So. 2d 1297 La. 1977
State v. Anthony, La., (1977); State v. Frezal, La., (1973); State v. Austin, 258 La.
State v. Sawyer 350 So. 2d 611 La. 1977
State v. Hamilton, 249 La.
State v. Anthony 347 So. 2d 483 La. 1977
State v. Frezal, La., (1973); State v. Austin, 258 La.
State v. Hodges 349 So. 2d 250 La. 1977
See State v. Frezal, La., (1973); State v. Hunter, 250 La.
State v. Jenkins 338 So. 2d 276 La. 1976
State v. Skelton 340 So. 2d 256 La. 1976
State v. Jenkins 340 So. 2d 157 La. 1976
State v. Franklin, 263 La.
State v. Waddles 336 So. 2d 810 La. 1976
State v. Jones 332 So. 2d 466 La. 1976
State v. Sims 329 So. 2d 722 La. 1976
State v. Nix 327 So. 2d 301 La. 1975
State v. Willis 322 So. 2d 169 La. 1975
art. 484; State v. Square, 257 La.
State v. Thomas 306 So. 2d 696 La. 1975
State v. Nelson 306 So. 2d 745 La. 1975
State v. Breston 304 So. 2d 313 La. 1974
In State v. Frezal, La., (1973), this Court upheld the denial of this information, holding that the defendant has no right to a pre-trial inspection of the evidence upon which the prosecution relies for its conviction.
State v. Kado 300 So. 2d 461 La. 1974
and cases cited therein.
State v. Lawrence 294 So. 2d 476 La. 1974
State v. Hollingsworth 292 So. 2d 516 La. 1974
and cases cited therein.
State v. Harrison 291 So. 2d 782 La. 1974
See also State v. Frezal, La., (1973); State v. Spencer, 257 La.
State v. Fallon 290 So. 2d 273 La. 1974
*293 Otherwise the requested charges were either not applicable, not wholly correct or pertinent or they were covered in the general charge or required qualification, limitation or explanation.
State v. Pellerin 286 So. 2d 639 La. 1973
State v. Fisher, 261 La.
State v. Barnard 287 So. 2d 770 La. 1973
403 , (1971); State v. Edgecombe, La., (1973); and State v. Frezal, La., (1973).