Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Layssard, 310 So. 2d 107.

24 citing documents.

Jessica Langley Thomas v. Carroll F. Thomas, II. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
Thomas v. Thomas 263 So. 3d 515 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Vogel 261 So. 3d 801 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
See Carr , 761 So.2d at 1278 ; State v. Layssard , , 110 (La.
Mirla Gonzalez Martinez v. David Andrew Martinez La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
Martinez v. Martinez 228 So. 3d 764 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Ashaki Okung Kelly La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
the supreme court stated: Where the judge is the trier of fact he has the right to question the witness to clarify the evidence in his mind.
State v. Kelly 153 So. 3d 1257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
the supreme court stated: Where the judge is the trier of fact he has the right to question the witness to clarify the evidence in his mind.
State ex rel. A.J. 151 So. 3d 659 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
concluded: Where the judge is the trier of fact he has the right to question the witness to clarify the evidence in his mind.
State v. Gates 128 So. 3d 417 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
1 Cir. 6/24/94) , , the appellate court stated that, “[t]he DWI statute does not limit the prohibition of driving while intoxicated to driving on state highways, and evidence of operating a [¿vehicle while intoxicated, even in the ditch, constitutes evidence of the offense.” Further, as cited by this Court in Landeche, supra, stated: “The statute (R.S.
State ex rel. D.R. 50 So. 3d 927 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
the Supreme Court noted: Where the judge is the trier of fact he has the right to question the witness to clarify the evidence in his mind.
State v. In the Interest of Q.U.O. 907 So. 2d 221 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
State v. Carr 738 So. 2d 1173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
State v. Smith, 93-1490, pp. 5-6 (La.App.
State v. Smith 638 So. 2d 1212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
State v. Lorenz 572 So. 2d 362 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Deaton 486 So. 2d 1134 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
State v. Landeche 447 So. 2d 1201 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
State v. Sims 426 So. 2d 148 La. 1983
State v. Johnson 389 So. 2d 1302 La. 1980
This Court, stated that: "Where the judge is the trier of fact he has the right to question the witness to clarify the evidence in his mind.
State v. Williams 375 So. 2d 1379 La. 1979
State v. Nicholas 359 So. 2d 965 La. 1978
State v. Coffil, 222 La.
State v. Wagster 361 So. 2d 849 La. 1978
Although it may be different in a trial by a judge alone, questioning of witnesses in a criminal jury trial by the judge is a practice to be avoided unless deemed indispensable to a fair and impartial trial.
State v. Thomason 353 So. 2d 235 La. 1977
State v. Spot 340 So. 2d 1349 La. 1976
Citing cases which had held that in misdemeanor trials an opening statement is not required ( State v. Himel, 260 La.
State v. Bolen 338 So. 2d 97 La. 1976