Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Sharp, 338 So. 2d 654.

31 citing documents.

State v. Deutor 842 So. 2d 438 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
in which the defendant asserted that the murder victim’s eight-year-old son was not competent to testify.
State v. Burmaster 710 So. 2d 274 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
State v. Allen 647 So. 2d 428 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
in which the defendant asserted that the murder victim's eight-year-old son was not competent to testify.
State v. Fairley 645 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
State v. McCants 644 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
State v. Stewart 641 So. 2d 1086 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
State v. Tanner 534 So. 2d 535 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
Faced with a the court stated: "[7,8] The state properly observes that a motion for new trial must rest upon a finding of prejudice to the accused ( see C.Cr.P.
State v. Broussard 532 So. 2d 208 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Cappel 525 So. 2d 335 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Green 505 So. 2d 265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Williams 497 So. 2d 333 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
1982); State v. Humphrey, supra; State v. Flores, 169 La.
State v. Sampson 480 So. 2d 952 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Callis 466 So. 2d 477 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
Watermeier v. Watermeier 462 So. 2d 1272 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State v. Ducote 452 So. 2d 1305 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
State v. Foy 439 So. 2d 433 La. 1983
State v. Buchanan 439 So. 2d 576 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
the court stated that it would not sanction and hold to a hard and fast rule that the failure of the trial court to verbalize the option at an arraignment of a defendant necessarily constitutes reversible error.
State v. Brockington 437 So. 2d 994 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Parker 416 So. 2d 545 La. 1982
However, lack of technical compliance with Art. 780 will not constitute reversible error
State v. Mitchell 412 So. 2d 1042 La. 1982
State v. Arnaud 412 So. 2d 1013 La. 1982
State v. Davis 399 So. 2d 1168 La. 1981
State v. Skipper 387 So. 2d 592 La. 1980
State v. Thompson 364 So. 2d 908 La. 1978
State v. Milford, 225 La.
State v. Davis 357 So. 2d 1125 La. 1978
State v. Washington 353 So. 2d 258 La. 1977
State v. Muller 351 So. 2d 143 La. 1977
The state acknowledges this standard, support the view that the court below erred.
State v. Hatter 350 So. 2d 149 La. 1977
State v. Weeks 345 So. 2d 26 La. 1977
[2] State v. Rachal, 212 La.
State v. Sewell 342 So. 2d 156 La. 1977
Nevertheless, the Court, concluded: ".
State v. Ardoin 340 So. 2d 1362 La. 1976
E. g., (failure to inform defendant of his right to waive jury trialheld defendant aware of right); (technical errors in indictment form); State v. McKinney, supra (violation of sequestration rule); (no notice to defendant of intent t