Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Randolph, 334 So. 2d 687.

16 citing documents.

State v. Bowens 871 So. 2d 1178 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
State v. Jackson 733 So. 2d 736 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
Criminal Procedure article 464 specifies that an error in the statutory citation on a bill of information does not necessitate reversal unless the defendant establishes that prejudice resulted, and the failure to set forth alleged false testimony in a perjury bill was rejected as a (La.
State v. Keys 694 So. 2d 1107 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
State v. Allen 682 So. 2d 713 La. 1996
State v. Quatrevingt 670 So. 2d 197 La. 1996
State v. Berry 645 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
However, the supreme court found no reversible error in the trial court's prohibiting defense counsel from questioning the witness about a civil suit, because no prejudice could have resulted to the defendant Randolph from the court's refusal to admit the evidence, which was relevant only to show motive in having a
State v. Quatrevingt 617 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
Distinguished State v. Bass 509 So. 2d 176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
[4] from the instant case because those cases involved elements of the crime which showed the manner in which the offenses were committed and did not control the grade of the offense for purposes of punishment, jury trial and appellate jurisdiction.
State v. Griffin 495 So. 2d 1306 La. 1986
State v. Braxton 458 So. 2d 1017 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
the court presented an analysis of the elements necessary to establish the sufficiency of an indictment, and stated: “This Court previously held the indictment to strict requirements and judged it with a hypertechnical eye in order to safeguard the accused’s constitutional right to ‘be informed of the natur
State v. Gainey 376 So. 2d 1240 La. 1979
State v. Pichler 355 So. 2d 1302 La. 1978
this Court made the following analysis of the elements necessary to establish the sufficiency of an indictment: This Court previously held the indictment to strict requirements and judged it with a hypertechnical eye in order to safeguard the accused's constitutional right to "be informed of the nature
State v. LeJeune 352 So. 2d 619 La. 1977
We cited this language with approval in State v. Randolph, La., (1976).
State v. Kellogg 350 So. 2d 656 La. 1977
State v. Ford 349 So. 2d 300 La. 1977
Moreover, that an accused's constitutional right to "be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him" [1] should not be restricted to meaning that the defendant must be informed by indictment of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
State v. Flowers 337 So. 2d 469 La. 1976