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. Kaufman, 304 So. 2d 300.

77 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Sidney Myers La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2025
    38 in which the defendant was charged with the murder of a gas station attendant in the course of a robbery.
  • State of Louisiana v. Daniel White -Aka- Daniel Jackson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
  • State v. Anthony 266 So. 3d 415 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
  • State v. Celestine 131 So. 3d 947 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    State v. Kaufman, supra [ ]; (recognizing the stated rule but finding that the prosecutor’s comment did not imply to the jury that he had personal knowledge of facts not presented to them indicating the defendan
  • State of Louisiana v. Tyrone Mitchell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    In support of his argument, (La.App.
  • State v. Mitchell 125 So. 3d 586 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    In support of his argument, (La.App.
  • State v. Allen 126 So. 3d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    State v. Kaufman, [ ]; (recognizing the stated rule but finding that the prosecutor’s comment did not imply to the jury that he had personal knowledge of facts not presented to them indicating the defenda
  • State v. Everett 96 So. 3d 605 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    stand for the rule that it is improper for the prosecutor to comment on his personal belief in the defendant’s guilt.
  • State of Louisiana v. Jonathan Edward Boyer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    6/20/97), which set forth the requirements for admission of the prior testimony of an unavailable witness at a subsequent trial, as follows: cert.
  • State v. Boyer 56 So. 3d 1119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    4 Cir. 12/27/96), , writ denied, 97-277 (La.6/20/97), , which set forth the requirements for admission of the prior testimony *1132 of an unavailable witness at a subsequent trial, as follows: cert.
  • State v. Williams 22 So. 3d 867 La. 2009
    While a prosecutor may not advert to his own opinions as to the appropriateness of the penalty at the sentencing stage of a capital case, -07 (La.1974), he will avoid interjecting an arbitrary factor into the proceedings by basing his comments on the same evidence that jurors have also heard and may evaluate for themselves.
  • State v. Riley 941 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
    State v. Kaufman, [ ]; (recognizing the stated rule but finding that the prosecutor's comment did not imply to the jury that he had personal knowledge of facts not presented to them indicating the defendan
  • State of Louisiana v. Robert S. Willis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    for the proposition that a “prosecutor cannot vouch for the credibility of a witness or use the credibility and prestige of the district attorney’s office to bolster its case.” The Defendant points out the following language from Smith, : [I]t has consistently be
  • State v. Willis 915 So. 2d 365 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    for the proposition that a "prosecutor cannot vouch for the credibility of a witness or use the credibility and prestige of the district attorney's office to bolster its case."
  • State v. Williams 833 So. 2d 497 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    *506 to support his position that the State failed to make a diligent effort to secure Rodrigue's appearance for trial.
  • State v. Robinson 811 So. 2d 967 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
  • State v. Hensley 781 So. 2d 834 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
  • State v. Plaisance 745 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    cert denied, 429 U.S. 981 , 97 S.Ct.
  • State v. Jordan 719 So. 2d 556 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    appeal after remand, , cert.
  • State v. Lewis 687 So. 2d 1056 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    the purpose of the constitutional right of confrontation is to insure that the witness will give statements under oath, thus impressing the witness with the seriousness of the matter and guarding against a lie by the possibility of a penalty for perjury, to force the witness to submit to cross-examination
  • State v. Woodberry 686 So. 2d 984 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
  • State v. Baker 674 So. 2d 1108 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    Defense counsel then stated he would object on the record for the reason advanced at the bench conference—that the argument was improper as the prosecutor did not clearly state it was his opinion that the rock involved was cocaine
  • State v. Smith 668 So. 2d 1260 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
  • State v. Williams 651 So. 2d 331 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
  • State v. Jones 648 So. 2d 472 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
  • State v. Diaz 635 So. 2d 499 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    LSBA-Rules of Professional Conduct-Rule 3.4(e)
  • State v. Taylor 593 So. 2d 431 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    State v. Willis, 241 La.
  • State v. Jackson 568 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    Paul Landry, personally the best police officer I have ever known — ” While it is improper for a prosecutor to comment on his personal belief in the defendant’s guilt, it is not improper to comment on the credibility of witnesses.
  • State v. Smith 554 So. 2d 676 La. 1989
    appeal after remand, , cert.
  • State v. Nicholas 548 So. 2d 1278 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • State v. Floyd 544 So. 2d 616 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
    at note 6 (La.1974), cert.
  • State v. Martin 539 So. 2d 1235 La. 1989
    1978) these two cases stand only for the proposition it is improper for the prosecutor to comment on his personal belief in the defendant's guilt.
  • State v. Magouirk 539 So. 2d 50 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Racca 525 So. 2d 1229 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Headley 522 So. 2d 1269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Gardner 524 So. 2d 1271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    cert denied, 429 U.S. 981 , 97 S.Ct.
  • State v. Brunet 521 So. 2d 594 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Williams 524 So. 2d 1221 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
  • State v. Smith 491 So. 2d 641 La. 1986
    Upon retrial, however, in the event the same or similar questions are presented, we note the possibly reversible issues and the authorities by which the trial court should be guided: (1) whether a contemporaneous instruction should accompany the introduction of an impeaching prior inconsistent statement, (La.
  • State v. Lawson 485 So. 2d 597 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    Finally, defendant’s argument that the prosecutor’s cert.
  • State v. Byrne 483 So. 2d 564 La. 1986
  • State v. Duplessis 457 So. 2d 604 La. 1984
    See ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, The Prosecution Function, Ch. 3, § 5.8(d) (2d ed. 1979)
  • State v. Citizen 431 So. 2d 1051 La. 1983
  • State v. Montgomery 432 So. 2d 340 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Robinson 423 So. 2d 1053 La. 1982
  • State v. Winn 412 So. 2d 1337 La. 1982
    that a showing of unavailability must be made before a witness' former testimony can be admitted.
  • State v. Barrow 410 So. 2d 1070 La. 1982
  • State v. Sugar 408 So. 2d 1329 La. 1982
  • State v. Belgard 410 So. 2d 720 La. 1982
    [3] Defendant *724 cert.
  • State v. Taylor 410 So. 2d 224 La. 1982
    He argues that the statements go well beyond the scope of the evidence and are prohibited by Article 774