Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Green, 315 So. 2d 763.

29 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Randall C. Thompson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
In support of his argument
State v. Thompson 111 So. 3d 580 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
In support of his argument, (La.
State v. Molere 99 So. 3d 1050 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
4 Cir. 4/9/03) , ; State v. Demise, 98-0541 (La.4/3/01), ; (La.App.
State v. Higginbotham 122 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
which reversed a defendant's conviction after a prosecutor inappropriately referred to other crimes evidence and the defense sought a mandatory mistrial under Article 770.
State v. Wright 796 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
The Defendant also contends that a remark prohibited “by Article 770 is per se a substantial violation” of his rights and this court is not free to speculate what the jury might have found had his rights not been violated, (La.App.
State v. Ard 686 So. 2d 1026 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
State v. Morgan 671 So. 2d 998 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
State v. Lacey 669 So. 2d 1303 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
State v. Shaw 645 So. 2d 1279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
State v. Cook 590 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
State v. Moser 588 So. 2d 1243 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
the Court found error in the prosecution's reference to other crimes evidence and specifically held that the harmless error rule of Article 921 did not apply to a violation of Article 770.
State v. Williams 575 So. 2d 452 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
"The denial of a mistrial upon the motion of a defendant, when the motion is based properly on one of the grounds listed in article 770, is `per se a substantial violation of a statutory right.'"
State v. Lee 569 So. 2d 1038 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
State v. Sebble 567 So. 2d 160 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Romero 574 So. 2d 330 La. 1990
State v. Felix 556 So. 2d 1317 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
State v. Martinez-Sanchez 550 So. 2d 232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Andrews 527 So. 2d 411 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
State v. Morgan 513 So. 2d 361 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
State v. Coleman 499 So. 2d 408 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
To argue that any prejudice to the defendant was cured by the court’s admonition ignores the clear language of article 770 that “an admonition to the jury to disregard the remark or comment shall not be sufficient to prevent a mistrial.”
State v. O'NEAL 478 So. 2d 1311 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State v. Green 478 So. 2d 583 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Nuccio 454 So. 2d 93 La. 1984
State v. Arnaud 448 So. 2d 253 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Brown 428 So. 2d 438 La. 1983
State v. Smith 418 So. 2d 534 La. 1982
State v. Deville 391 So. 2d 1145 La. 1980
State v. Lemelle 353 So. 2d 1312 La. 1977
State v. Johnson 343 So. 2d 155 La. 1977
First, "Was that before or after he [defendant] got out of the penitentiary?", which this court held mandated a mistrial.