Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Richmond, 284 So. 2d 317.

72 citing documents.

State v. Williams 22 So. 3d 867 La. 2009
State v. Moore 575 So. 2d 928 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
State *932 v. Collins, (La.App.
State v. Morgan 553 So. 2d 1012 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Because a peremptory challenge is the statutory right to reject a given juror without disclosure of reason or motive, a prosecutor is ordinarily entitled to exercise peremptory challenges "for any reason at all, as long as that reason is related to his view concerning the outcome" of the case to be tried.
State v. Adams 533 So. 2d 1060 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
Because a peremptory challenge is the statutory right to reject a given juror without disclosure of reason or motive, a prosecutor is ordinarily entitled to exercise peremptory challenges "for any reason at all, as long as that reason is related to his view concerning the outcome" of the case to be tried.
State v. Gintz 438 So. 2d 1230 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Wise 434 So. 2d 1308 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Tonubbee 420 So. 2d 126 La. 1982
State v. Bertrand, supra
State v. McKeever 407 So. 2d 662 La. 1981
State v. Bertrand 381 So. 2d 489 La. 1980
State v. Carthan 377 So. 2d 308 La. 1979
State v. Drew 360 So. 2d 500 La. 1978
See, e. g., State v. Franklin, 263 La.
State v. Matthews 354 So. 2d 552 La. 1978
1577 , 43 L.Ed.2d 782 (1975)
State v. Lewis 353 So. 2d 703 La. 1977
1577 , 43 L.Ed.2d 782 (1975); (La.
State v. Charles 350 So. 2d 595 La. 1977
State v. Forbes 348 So. 2d 983 La. 1977
19, 1976; State v. Bell, [La., (1975)]
State Ex Rel. Smith v. Phelps 345 So. 2d 446 La. 1977
1973); State v. Ysasi, 222 La.
State v. Madison 345 So. 2d 485 La. 1977
State v. Buckley 344 So. 2d 980 La. 1977
1973); State v. Ysasi, 222 La.
State v. De La Beckwith 344 So. 2d 360 La. 1977
State v. Jarreau 340 So. 2d 574 La. 1976
State v. Bennett 341 So. 2d 847 La. 1976
State v. Stewart, supra ; State v. Dillard, supra
State v. Jones 340 So. 2d 563 La. 1976
State v. Blanton, La., (1976); State v. Carlisle, La., (1975); State v. Richmond, La., (1973).
State v. Clark 340 So. 2d 1302 La. 1976
State v. Blanton, La., (1976); State v. Carlisle, La., (1975); State v. Richmond, La., (1973).
State v. Calloway 343 So. 2d 694 La. 1976
State v. Weathers, La., (1975); State v. Jones, supra; State v. Richmond, La., (1973); State v. Flucas, 262 La.
State v. Cotton 341 So. 2d 362 La. 1976
Examples of valid prosecutions for multiple crimes committed within a State v. Ysasi, 222 La.
State v. Miles 339 So. 2d 735 La. 1976
State v. Richmond, La., (1973); State v. Edwards, 261 La.
State v. Clark 340 So. 2d 208 La. 1976
State v. Morris 340 So. 2d 195 La. 1976
State v. Jenkins 340 So. 2d 157 La. 1976
that standard was articulated: "The grant or denial of a recess is largely within the well founded discretion of the trial court * * * where the defense did not make a showing of a compelling reason for granting a recess, at the time the motion was made, it cannot be said the trial court abused its discretio
State v. Roach 338 So. 2d 621 La. 1976
State v. Gallow 338 So. 2d 920 La. 1976
State v. Richmond, La., (1973); State v. Edwards, 261 La.
State v. Jackson 339 So. 2d 730 La. 1976
See State v. Richmond, La., (1973); State v. Edwards, 261 La.
State v. Nichols 337 So. 2d 1074 La. 1976
1973); State v. Thames, 261 La.
State v. Foe 337 So. 2d 491 La. 1976
relied upon by the defense, does not support its position.
State v. Davis 336 So. 2d 805 La. 1976
Cf: Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 446 , 90 S.Ct.
State v. Jackson 332 So. 2d 755 La. 1976
State v. Rudolph 332 So. 2d 806 La. 1976
State v. Berry, supra ; State v. Stewart, supra
State v. Matthews 329 So. 2d 678 La. 1976
State v. Berry 329 So. 2d 728 La. 1976
19, 1976; State v. Bell, supra
State v. Calloway 324 So. 2d 801 La. 1976
State v. Stewart 325 So. 2d 819 La. 1976
State v. Coleman 322 So. 2d 195 La. 1975
State v. Sharp 321 So. 2d 331 La. 1975
that standard was articulated: "The grant or denial of a recess is largely within the well founded discretion of the trial court * * * where the defense did not make a showing of a compelling reason for granting a recess, at the time the motion was made, it cannot be said the trial court abused its discretio
State v. Brown 322 So. 2d 211 La. 1975
State ex rel. Sanders v. Henderson 320 So. 2d 202 La. 1975
State v. Pettle, La., ; State v. Richmond, La., .
State v. Dillard 320 So. 2d 116 La. 1975
State v. Humphreys 319 So. 2d 344 La. 1975
State v. Dupuy 319 So. 2d 294 La. 1975
State v. Liddell 318 So. 2d 1 La. 1975
State v. Richmond, La., (1973) and the decisions thereat cited.
State v. Monk 315 So. 2d 727 La. 1975
art. 622 (1966); State v. Flood,: