Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Ledet, 298 So. 2d 761.

20 citing documents.

State v. Williams 822 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
[, 764] (La.1974), the purpose of the rule is stated in these terms: `The essential reason for the prohibition is that a note-taker may unduly influence the jury by reference to the notes and that, if the notes are inaccurate and incomplete, the parties before the court may be prejudiced by the jurymen's acceptance of
State v. Colbert 615 So. 2d 32 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
State v. Velez 588 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
State v. Matthieu 527 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
He shall not be permitted to refer to notes or to have access to any written evidence.” writ of mandamus denied, 315 So.
State v. Chapman 410 So. 2d 689 La. 1982
State v. Naas 409 So. 2d 535 La. 1981
State v. Lewis 351 So. 2d 1193 La. 1977
State v. Abney 347 So. 2d 498 La. 1977
Barber v. St. Francis Cabrini Hospital, Inc. 345 So. 2d 1307 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
art. 793, which held that use of notes is not per se prejudicial nor such gross misconduct as to nullify a jury verdict.
State v. Durr 343 So. 2d 1004 La. 1977
State v. Perkins 337 So. 2d 1145 La. 1976
State v. Sinclair, 258 La.
State v. Owens 338 So. 2d 645 La. 1976
State v. Roach 338 So. 2d 621 La. 1976
State v. Sullivan 333 So. 2d 638 La. 1976
State v. Johanson 332 So. 2d 270 La. 1976
State v. Gomez 319 So. 2d 424 La. 1975
State v. Sinclair, 258 La.
State ex rel. Ledet v. Marcel 315 So. 2d 39 La. 1975
State v. Groves 311 So. 2d 230 La. 1975
the purpose of the rule is stated in these terms: "The essential reason for the prohibition is that a note-taker may unduly influence the jury by reference to the notes and that, if the notes are inaccurate and incomplete, the parties before the court may be prejudiced by the jurymen's acceptance of them in
State v. McCully 310 So. 2d 833 La. 1975
See State v. Ledet, La., (1974).
Distinguished State v. Fortenberry 307 So. 2d 296 La. 1975