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. James, 305 So. 2d 514.

92 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Akeeley Keshawn Blade La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
  • State of Louisiana v. Dewayne Sylvester La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
    Furthermore, -17 (La.1974): [W]here in fact an accused has been fairly informed of the charges against him by the indictment and has not been prejudiced by surprise or lack of notice, the technical sufficiency of the indictment may not be questioned after conviction where, as here, no objection was ra
  • State ex rel. Young v. State 178 So. 3d 135 La. 2015
  • State of Louisiana v. Michael Lee Jones La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    .’” The Cross court recognized the defect, but found that the defendant had suffered no prejudice, explaining in pertinent part: the Supreme Court stated: [W]here in fact an accused has been fairly informed of the charge against him by the indictment and has not been prejudiced by surprise or lack of notice, the technical
  • State v. Perkins 155 So. 3d 649 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    However, as was ^recognized by this Court in Ordon, the court held that such an error does not necessarily require reversal: [T]he James court held that constitutional considerations did not require reversal “where in fact an accused has been fairly informed of the charge against him by the indictment and has not been prejudiced by surprise or lack of notice
  • State v. Brown 131 So. 3d 207 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    -20 (La.1974), that when there is an error in the bill of information, there must also be 119a determination of actual surprise or prejudice to constitute reversible error.
  • State v. Bruce 102 So. 3d 1029 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State v. T.T. 111 So. 3d 71 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State v. Robinson 87 So. 3d 881 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2011
    State v. Butler, 41,985 (La.App.
  • State v. Brown 71 So. 3d 1069 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    State v. Butler, 41,985 (La.App.
  • State v. Lay 986 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
  • State v. Butler 960 So. 2d 1208 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
  • State v. Jackson 916 So. 2d 1015 La. 2005
    to find the failure to amend the indictment harmless under the following circumstances: However, we are convinced that where as in the case sub judice the defendant enters a plea of guilty to a crime nonresponsive to the original indictment when such a plea is acceptable to the district attorney, the defend
  • State v. Rhodes 881 So. 2d 1263 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
  • State v. Gardner 844 So. 2d 1097 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    Correlative to this present-day relaxing of the hyper-technical requirements of the indictment and of its formal supplementation by bill of particulars (see also State v. James, La., [(1974)] (Docket No. 54,874), this day rendered), is an obligation on the part of the State, in the interest of assuring a fair trial, of assuring that the accused is furnished essential information concerning the charge, in order that he may adequately prepare what defense he has.
  • State v. Allen 824 So. 2d 344 La. 2002
    art. 487(A); -17 (La.1974); , 1252 n. 2 (La.App.
  • State v. Noil 807 So. 2d 295 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
  • State v. Allen 793 So. 2d 426 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    2 Cir. *435 1988), approach was not applicable to cases involving defects in a bill of information that affected the sentencing exposure.
  • State v. Miller 757 So. 2d 744 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    -17 (La.1974): We now conclude that, for reasons to be elaborated, where in fact an accused has been fairly informed of the charge against him by the indictment and has not been prejudiced by surprise or lack of notice, the technical sufficiency of the indictment may not be questioned after conviction where, as he
  • State v. Meneses 731 So. 2d 375 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    In 1974, overruled its prior decisions, which had annulled convictions on appeal when the identity of the victim was not properly identified, irrespective of the absence of surprise or prejudice.
  • State v. Michels 726 So. 2d 449 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    that where an accused has been fairly informed of the charge against him by the indictment and has not been prejudiced by surprise or lack of notice, the technical sufficiency of the indictment may not be questioned after conviction where, as here, no objection was raised to it prior to the verdict and wher
  • State v. Owens 719 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
  • State v. Ordon 697 So. 2d 1074 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
  • State v. Peterson 696 So. 2d 211 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    the supreme court noted as error patent that the bill of information named a business rather than an individual on a charge of armed robbery.
  • State v. Keys 694 So. 2d 1107 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
  • State v. Black 669 So. 2d 667 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
  • State v. Carter 664 So. 2d 367 La. 1995
  • State v. Folse 623 So. 2d 59 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    -517 (La.1974); (La.App.
  • State v. Claxton 603 So. 2d 247 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
  • State v. Jones 600 So. 2d 875 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
  • State v. Barclay 591 So. 2d 1178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
  • Overruled State v. Lee 577 So. 2d 134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
  • State v. Darville 573 So. 2d 1155 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
    In finding defendant's argument without merit, the court stated as follows: (La.
  • State v. Williams 554 So. 2d 139 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    This precise deficiency, however
  • State v. Mitchell 553 So. 2d 915 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • State v. Taylor 553 So. 2d 873 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • State v. Robinson 549 So. 2d 1282 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Shelton 545 So. 2d 1285 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Jones 540 So. 2d 1124 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • State v. Gilmore 529 So. 2d 859 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
    the bill of information charged the defendant with armed robbery of a company and not a person as required by R.S.
  • State v. Hudson 527 So. 2d 336 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    the bill of information charged the defendant with armed robbery of a company and not a person as required by R.S.
  • State v. Ainsworth 528 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
    in which Justice Tate, as the organ for the supreme court, held: [W]here in fact an accused has been fairly informed of the charge against him by the indictment and has not been prejudiced by surprise or lack of notice, the technical sufficiency of the indictment may not be questioned where, as here, no obj
  • State v. Kelly 524 So. 2d 123 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
  • State v. Grey 522 So. 2d 1216 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
  • State v. Zihlavsky 505 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Rogers 494 So. 2d 1251 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • State v. Harris 478 So. 2d 229 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    the Supreme Court held that an indictment with the identical defect as the original one in the instant case was not fatally defective.
  • State v. Harris 478 So. 2d 233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    2 the Louisiana Supreme Court held that an indictment with the identical defect as the one in the instant case was not fatally defective, and stated: “We now conclude that, for reasons to be elaborated, where in fact an accused has been fairly informed of the charge against him by the indictment and has not
  • State v. Cox 474 So. 2d 523 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
  • State v. Cross 461 So. 2d 1246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    the Supreme Court stated: [W]here in fact an accused has been fairly informed of the charge against him by the indictment and has not been prejudiced by surprise or lack of notice, the technical sufficiency of the indictment may not be questioned after conviction where, as here, no objection was raised