Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Freetime, 303 So. 2d 487.

39 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Robert Leroy McCoy 218 So. 3d 535 La. 2016
“[T]he Louisiana legislature has made the value-determination that, because of the presumed prejudice, documents received in evidence should be sent to the jury on its request only ‘when a physical examination thereof is required to enable the jury to arrive at a verdict.’” (La.
State v. Caminita 203 So. 3d 1100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. DOWL 39 So. 3d 754 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
4 Cir. 4/10/02) , , this Court, explained the rationale of La.
State of Louisiana v. D D La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. Arnaudville, 170 La.
State v. DD 34 So. 3d 1169 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. Arnaudville, 170 La.
State v. RWW 999 So. 2d 33 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
*39 -89 (La.1974), the supreme court explained the policy behind La.Code Crim.P.
State of Louisiana v. R.W.W. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
-89 (La.1974), the supreme court explained the policy behind La.Code Crim.P.
State v. R.W.W. 999 So. 2d 33 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
*39 -89 (La.1974), the supreme court explained the policy behind La.Code Crim.P.
State v. RWW 953 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
App. 3 Cir. 11/2/05), ( -89 (La.1974) aff'd after remand, ).
State of Louisiana v. R.W.W. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
3 Cir. 11/2/05), ( -89 (La.1974) aff’d after remand, ).
State v. R.W.W. 953 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
App. 3 Cir. 11/2/05), ( -89 (La.1974) affd after remand, ).
State of Louisiana v. Justin Savoy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. 8 Freetime, appeal after remand
State v. Savoy 916 So. 2d 339 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
1975); appeal after remand
State v. Caston 914 So. 2d 122 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
State v. Brooks 838 So. 2d 725 La. 2003
See Adams, 550 So.2d at 598-99 (conviction for first degree murder reversed because jury reviewed audio tape and transcript of defendant's confession during deliberations); (permitting jurors to have access to written confession, after they retired to deliberate, for sole purpose of rereading its verbal content, constituted reversible error).
State v. Nightengale 818 So. 2d 819 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
State v. Sellers 818 So. 2d 231 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
State v. Brooks 781 So. 2d 1266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Johnson 726 So. 2d 1126 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
at 1110 , -89 (La.1974).
State v. Pooler 696 So. 2d 22 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
State v. Howard 626 So. 2d 459 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
1982) the court, stated: In State v. Freetime, supra, this court found reversible error when the trial court permitted the jury to read the defendant's confession after retiring to deliberate.
State v. Lewis 611 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
State v. Broussard 598 So. 2d 1302 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
State v. Lewis 590 So. 2d 1266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
State v. Adams 550 So. 2d 595 La. 1989
aff'd after remand, (La.
State v. Johnson 541 So. 2d 818 La. 1989
"[T]he Louisiana legislature has made the value-determination that, because of the presumed prejudice, documents received in evidence should be sent to the jury on its request only `when a physical examination thereof is required to enable the jury to arrive at a verdict.'" (emphasis in opinion).
State v. Adams 537 So. 2d 1262 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
State v. Gracia 527 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
State v. Gongre 503 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Johnson 482 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
1977); State v. Arnaudville, 170 La.
State v. Hart 467 So. 2d 1366 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State v. Buras 459 So. 2d 756 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Johnson 438 So. 2d 1091 La. 1983
State v. Perkins 423 So. 2d 1103 La. 1982
State v. Arnaudville, 170 La.
State v. Billiot 370 So. 2d 539 La. 1979
State v. Marchand 362 So. 2d 1090 La. 1978
State v. Passman 345 So. 2d 874 La. 1977
State v. Freetime 334 So. 2d 207 La. 1976
State v. McCully 310 So. 2d 833 La. 1975