Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Bell, 315 So. 2d 307.

103 citing documents.

Nichols v. US Rentals, Inc. 556 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
State v. Hall 549 So. 2d 373 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
State v. Gray 526 So. 2d 1268 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
State v. Jenkins 508 So. 2d 191 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
the Supreme Court set forth the following factors as being relevant in determining whether to change venue: "(1) [T]he nature of pretrial publicity and the particular degree to which it has circulated in the community, (2) the connection of government officials with the release of the publicity, (3) the len
State v. Prestridge 507 So. 2d 1271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
622; appeal after remand
State v. Balfa 506 So. 2d 1369 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed those relevant factors which should be considered when determining the propriety of granting defendant's request for a change of venue.
State v. Mills 505 So. 2d 933 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State v. Brown 496 So. 2d 261 La. 1986
State v. Deboue 496 So. 2d 394 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
State v. Wilson 467 So. 2d 503 La. 1985
Bernard v. Richoux 464 So. 2d 856 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State v. Williams 458 So. 2d 1315 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Henry 446 So. 2d 1308 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
: Some relevant factors' in determining whether to change venue are (1) the nature of pretrial publicity and the particular degree to which it has circulated in the community, (2) the connection of government officials with the release of the publicity, (3) the length of time between the dissemination of the
State v. Clark 442 So. 2d 1129 La. 1983
State v. Harper 430 So. 2d 627 La. 1983
State v. David 425 So. 2d 1241 La. 1983
State v. Brogdon 426 So. 2d 158 La. 1983
State v. Watson 423 So. 2d 1130 La. 1982
State v. West 419 So. 2d 868 La. 1982
State v. Goodson 412 So. 2d 1077 La. 1982
State v. Rodrigue 409 So. 2d 556 La. 1982
State v. Willie 410 So. 2d 1019 La. 1982
State v. Edwards 406 So. 2d 1331 La. 1981
at 880 (La.1977) summarizes the considerations governing the exercise of that discretion: this Court set forth the following factors to be considered in determining whether to change venue: * * * (1) (T)he nature of pretrial publicity and the particular degree to which it has circulated in the community, (2) the connection of government officials with the release of the publicity, (3) the length
State v. Wilkerson 403 So. 2d 652 La. 1981
this Court set out certain factors to be considered in determining whether a change of venue is warranted.
State v. McDonald 404 So. 2d 889 La. 1981
: "Some relevant factors in determining whether to change venue are (1) the nature of the pretrial publicity and the particular degree to which it has circulated in the community, (2) the connection of government officials with the release of the publicity, (3) the length of the time between the disseminatio
State v. Beavers 394 So. 2d 1218 La. 1981
State v. Adams 394 So. 2d 1204 La. 1981
State v. Kent 391 So. 2d 429 La. 1981
State v. Montgomery, 248 La.
State v. Baldwin 388 So. 2d 679 La. 1980
Considerations in determining whether to grant a request for a change of venue, include (1) the nature of pretrial publicity and the particular degree to which it has circulated in the community, (2) the connection of government officials with the release of the publicity, (3) the length of time between the dissemination of the publicity and the trial, (4) the severity and notoriety of
State v. Williams 385 So. 2d 214 La. 1980
State v. Felde 382 So. 2d 1384 La. 1980
As this Court stated in State v. Bell, La., : "Some relevant factors in determining whether to change venue are (1) the nature of pretrial publicity and the particular degree to which it has circulated in the community, (2) the connection of government officials with the release of the publicity, (3) the length of time *1386 between the dissemination of the pub
State v. Albert 381 So. 2d 424 La. 1980
State v. Simmons 381 So. 2d 803 La. 1980
State v. Sonnier 379 So. 2d 1336 La. 1980
State v. Eames 365 So. 2d 1361 La. 1979
State v. Beavers 364 So. 2d 1004 La. 1978
State v. Jones 351 So. 2d 1194 La. 1977
defense counsel conducted a "dry run voir dire" for the purpose of demonstrating prejudice in the community to such an extent that the accused would not be able to obtain a fair and impartial trial in the parish where the prosecution was pending.
State v. Sheppard 350 So. 2d 615 La. 1977
State v. Forbes 348 So. 2d 983 La. 1977
19, 1976; State v. Bell, [La., (1975)]
State v. Bell 346 So. 2d 1090 La. 1977
State v. Madison 345 So. 2d 485 La. 1977
State v. Passman 345 So. 2d 874 La. 1977
this Court set forth the following factors to be considered in determining whether to change venue: "* * * (1) [T]he nature of pretrial publicity and the particular degree to which it has circulated in the community, (2) the connection of government officials with the release of the publicity, (3) the lengt
State v. De La Beckwith 344 So. 2d 360 La. 1977
we held that the trial judge therein committed reversible error by his refusal to issue defendants' requested subpoenas of news representatives and other witnesses or permit the introduction of evidence of the extensive publicity.
State v. Bennett 341 So. 2d 847 La. 1976
A hearing on the motion for a
State v. Smith 340 So. 2d 222 La. 1976
State v. Jenkins 340 So. 2d 157 La. 1976
State v. Burnette 337 So. 2d 1096 La. 1976
In State v. Bell, La., (1975), this Court set forth the following factors to be considered in determining whether to change venue: "(1) the nature of pretrial publicity and the particular degree to which it has circulated in the community, (2) the connection of government officials with the release of the publicity, (3) the length of time b
State v. Rudolph 332 So. 2d 806 La. 1976
(decided March 29, 1976); *809 (La.1975).
State v. Berry 329 So. 2d 728 La. 1976
State v. Stewart 325 So. 2d 819 La. 1976
decided October 1, 1975)