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. Craddock, 307 So. 2d 342.

40 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Michael Steven White La. 2026
    And despite finding the failure to provide a “not guilty” responsive verdict on the written verdict form to be “a particularly egregious omission,” the appellate court rejected the defendant’s claim that the omission was patent error, (La.
  • State Of Louisiana v. Michael Steven White La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
  • State of Louisiana v. Kevin Rickmon La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
    t may reasonably cure the alleged error.” The Supreme Court has instructed that “alleged error concerning the sufficiency of the list of responsive verdicts given the jury, like error in the judge’s charge to the jury, is not reviewable under Art. 920(2) and may not be considered unless objection is made in the trial court in time for the trial judge to correct the error.” (La.
  • State of Louisiana Versus Cory W. Wall La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
    However, the Louisiana Supreme Court has instructed that an “alleged error concerning the sufficiency of the list of responsive verdicts given the jury, like error in the judge’s charge to the jury, is not reviewable under Art. 920(2) and may not be considered unless objection is made in the trial court in time for the trial judge to correct the error.” (La.
  • State of Louisiana Versus Alcus A. Smith A.K.A. "Bug" A.K.A. "Bull" La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2021
    20-KA-177 11 1282 n. 14 ( (La.
  • State of Louisiana Versus Kyriene Vallery La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2020
    App. 5 Cir. 07/08/20), — So.3d —, (La.
  • State of Louisiana Versus Adam Littleton La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2020
    See Harrell, 299 So.3d at 1282, 1284 n.14 ( (La.
  • State of Louisiana Versus Aaron Harrell La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2020
  • State of Louisiana Versus Errol Victor, Sr. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2020
  • State v. Armstead 144 So. 3d 66 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Parker 76 So. 3d 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    he asserts the failure to object to an error discoverable by under La.C.Cr.P.
  • State v. Hanson 938 So. 2d 1147 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
  • State v. Houston 925 So. 2d 690 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
  • State v. Morris 917 So. 2d 633 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    it had held that "alleged error concerning the sufficiency of the list of responsive verdicts given the jury, like error in the judge's charge to the jury, is not reviewable under Art. 920(2) and may not be considered unless objection is made in the trial court in time for the trial judge to correct th
  • State v. Odle 834 So. 2d 483 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    the defendant claimed that the trial court's failure to include certain responsive verdicts was an error patent.
  • State v. Serio 641 So. 2d 604 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
    nt recognizes that the jurisprudence holds that an error relating to the failure to object contemporaneously to a defect in the responsive verdicts is not patent error, he argues that the holding of these cases is wrong and that we should follow the dissenting, rather than the majority opinions in the two leading cases on the issue
  • State v. Holland 544 So. 2d 461 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Jones 525 So. 2d 1149 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
  • State v. Boyd 503 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Farmer 497 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • State v. Aucoin 488 So. 2d 1336 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    State v. Sanford, 248 La.
  • State v. Grant 486 So. 2d 901 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • State Ex Rel. Ross v. Blackburn 403 So. 2d 719 La. 1981
  • State v. Goodley 398 So. 2d 1068 La. 1981
    and State v. Sanford, 248 La.
  • State v. Cook 396 So. 2d 1258 La. 1981
    630 , (1965); and the verdict proper surely includes those markings placed upon the verdict sheet by the jury.
  • State v. Motton 395 So. 2d 1337 La. 1981
    and the cases therein cited.
  • State v. Myles 389 So. 2d 12 La. 1980
  • State v. Wrestle, Inc. 360 So. 2d 831 La. 1978
    Historically, our jurisprudence does not permit inspection of the trial transcript to ascertain such errors, but only of the pleadings and proceedings alone considered part of the record for purposes of patent-error appellate review—in general, the indictment or information, the minutes, and the verdict and sentence.
  • State v. Egena 347 So. 2d 1106 La. 1977
    See, State v. Comeaux, supra; State v. Sanford, 248 La.
  • State v. Roche 341 So. 2d 348 La. 1976
    In State v. Craddock, La., (1975), defendant assigned as error the trial court's failure to charge the jury regarding several additional responsive verdicts and to include those responsive verdicts on the list submitted to the jury.
  • State v. Turner 337 So. 2d 1090 La. 1976
    we held that "alleged error concerning the sufficiency of the list of responsive verdicts given the jury, like error in the judge's charge to the jury, is not reviewable under Art. 920(2) and may not be considered unless objection is made in the trial court in time for the trial judge to correct the error."
  • State v. Cobb 334 So. 2d 200 La. 1976
  • State v. Bullock 329 So. 2d 733 La. 1976
    art. 841, amended *736 by Acts 1974, No. 297 § 1
  • State v. Wolfe 321 So. 2d 335 La. 1975
  • State v. Marcell 320 So. 2d 195 La. 1975
  • State v. Watts 320 So. 2d 146 La. 1975
    Nor is the alleged error one discoverable by a mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings, [ for a discussion of the type of errors considered discoverable by mere inspection], and therefore it cannot be reviewed under Art. 920 (2).
  • State v. Mouton 319 So. 2d 331 La. 1975
  • State v. Mitchell 319 So. 2d 357 La. 1975
    See State v. Craddock, La., (1975) and the cases therein cited.
  • State v. White 315 So. 2d 301 La. 1975
  • State v. Oliveaux 312 So. 2d 337 La. 1975