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 v. Braxton 458 So. 2d 1017 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    But as we said in State v. James, supra [ ], the defendant’s right to learn before the trial of the particulars of the offense for which he is to be tried can be adequately protected by the bill of particulars and other discovery devices.
  • State v. Morris 457 So. 2d 119 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Gallow 452 So. 2d 1288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Defraites 449 So. 2d 540 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
    our Supreme Court relaxed the formerly inflexible rule regarding technical defects in indictments and held: The thrust of today's ruling simply modifies prior jurisprudence that permitted, post-verdict, the questioning of the sufficiency of the indictment even though there was no actual lack of notice a
  • State v. Pendergist 444 So. 2d 306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    it was held that a similar line of questioning was improper as irrelevant, since the bad general reputation of a witness for moral character cannot be shown by particular conduct.
  • State v. Minix 438 So. 2d 1261 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    ” Similarly, addressing an argument for remand to the trial court for compliance with the rule requiring a twenty-four hour delay between conviction and sentencing, the high court stated: “A remand would only serve to lengthen unnecessarily the already substantial
  • State v. Vanderhoff 415 So. 2d 190 La. 1982
  • State v. Robicheaux 412 So. 2d 1313 La. 1982
  • State v. Storms 406 So. 2d 135 La. 1981
  • State v. Johnson 404 So. 2d 239 La. 1981
  • State v. Morgan 389 So. 2d 364 La. 1980
  • State Ex Rel. Halvorsen v. Blackburn 388 So. 2d 806 La. 1980
  • State v. Gainey 376 So. 2d 1240 La. 1979
  • State v. Phillips 365 So. 2d 1304 La. 1978
  • State v. Landry 359 So. 2d 99 La. 1978
  • State v. Murray 357 So. 2d 1121 La. 1978
    State v. Turner, La., (1976); State v. Gordon, La., (1976); State v. Malmay, La., (1975); State v. James, La., (1974).
  • State v. Pichler 355 So. 2d 1302 La. 1978
    at pp. 516-517 , that: "* * * [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 to it prio
  • State v. Holstead 354 So. 2d 493 La. 1977
    is applicable to the instant situation, and hence the trial judge did not err in denying defendant's motions to quash the bill of information and in arrest of judgment.
  • State v. Hillman 353 So. 2d 1356 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
  • State v. LeJeune 352 So. 2d 619 La. 1977
    In State v. James, La., (1974), we 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 to it prio
  • State v. Gray 351 So. 2d 448 La. 1977
  • State in Interest of Jordan 348 So. 2d 697 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • State v. Ford 349 So. 2d 300 La. 1977
    More recently, however, we held that "where in fact an accused has been fairly informed if 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
  • State v. Williams 346 So. 2d 181 La. 1977
    The only question remaining is whether, the failure of the information to charge a crime punishable under Louisiana law should result in dismissal of the prosecution.
  • State v. Sepulvado 342 So. 2d 630 La. 1977
  • State v. Ardoin 340 So. 2d 1362 La. 1976
    E. g., (failure to inform defendant of his right to waive jury trial—held defendant aware of right); (technical errors in indictment form); State v. McKinney, supra (violation of sequestration rule); (no notice to defendant of intent to use inculpatory statements).
  • State v. James 339 So. 2d 741 La. 1976
    State v. James, La., (1974); State v. Scott, La., (1973).
  • State v. Marmillion 339 So. 2d 788 La. 1976
  • State v. Turner 337 So. 2d 1090 La. 1976
    this sort of technical exactitude has not been required of the indictment.
  • State v. Flowers 337 So. 2d 469 La. 1976
    [2] this court declined to hold invalid an armed robbery information which charged the robbery of a company, instead of a person, characterizing the defect as technical.
  • State v. Randolph 334 So. 2d 687 La. 1976
  • State v. Gordon 336 So. 2d 793 La. 1976
  • State v. Anderson 332 So. 2d 452 La. 1976
    State v. James, La., (1974).
  • State v. Governor 331 So. 2d 443 La. 1976
    1877 , 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972)
  • State v. Brown 321 So. 2d 516 La. 1975
  • State v. Moore 320 So. 2d 208 La. 1975
    The alleged deficiencies in the bill of information cannot be raised for the first time after conviction
  • State v. Mouton 319 So. 2d 331 La. 1975
  • State v. Roberts 319 So. 2d 317 La. 1975
  • State v. Malmay 315 So. 2d 286 La. 1975
  • State v. Monk 315 So. 2d 727 La. 1975
  • State v. Santos 309 So. 2d 129 La. 1975
    (decided December 2, 1974) (decided December 2, 1974).
  • State v. Mason 305 So. 2d 523 La. 1974
    Correlative to this present-day relaxing of the hypertechnical requirements of the indictment and of its formal supplementation by bill of particulars (see also State v. James, La., (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.