Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Johnson, 343 So. 2d 155.

59 citing documents.

State Of Louisiana v. Nelson Joel Torres La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
State v. Ross 195 So. 3d 1210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Nevertheless, assuming that the defendant properly objected to the prosecution’s remarks and preserved the issue for review, found that a reference to defendant’s incarceration did not warrant a mistrial.
State v. Castro 40 So. 3d 1036 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Robinson 986 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
defendant argued that he was entitled to a mistrial when the trial court, *723 during voir dire, made reference to the fact that defendant had been incarcerated.
State v. Benoit 960 So. 2d 279 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
385 , 166 L.Ed.2d 276 (2006), this Court recognized the following: (La.
State v. Johnson 958 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
the Louisiana Supreme Court found a similar in-court identification was not unduly suggestive.
State of Louisiana v. Leon D. Fussell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
3 Cir. 1993), this court stated: “The often repeated purpose of the rule is to prevent witnesses from being influenced by prior testimony and to strengthen the role of cross-examination in developing the facts.”
State v. Fussell 941 So. 2d 109 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
State v. Jacobs 904 So. 2d 82 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Williams 815 So. 2d 378 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
State v. Craig 747 So. 2d 604 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
wherein the supreme court found that a reference to defendant’s imprisonment did not warrant a mistrial because the statements complained of “merely drew attention to a prominent fact of the trial — that defendant had been formally | Raccused of the crime for which he was being tried.” The supreme court hel
State v. Singleton 723 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
and rejected the argument that the reference to incarceration was grounds for a mistrial.
State v. Wafer 719 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
the supreme court said: More persuasive is defendant's argument that the in-court identification procedure was suggestive.
State v. Campbell 683 So. 2d 1302 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
the supreme court visited a similar factual scenario involving a judge’s reference to the defendant’s confinement.
State v. Stowe 635 So. 2d 168 La. 1994
State v. Gamble 631 So. 2d 586 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
State v. Evins 626 So. 2d 480 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
State v. Walker 558 So. 2d 1346 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
State v. Gilmore 529 So. 2d 859 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
State v. Gardner 524 So. 2d 1271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
the defendant contended that the occupation of the defendant’s chair at the counsel table has identifying properties strongly suggesting to the witness that the person occupying that position is the perpetrator of the crime.
Henderson v. Eastman Whipstock Pilot, Inc. 524 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
State v. Wilson 520 So. 2d 935 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
State v. Dunbar 483 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Borel 473 So. 2d 928 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
” , at page 1306 (La.App.
State v. Brown 467 So. 2d 1151 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Taylor 468 So. 2d 617 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971)
State v. Cochran 463 So. 2d 30 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Sensley 460 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Wilson 454 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Redman 449 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Swartz 444 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Benoit 440 So. 2d 129 La. 1983
State v. Gatson 434 So. 2d 1315 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Allen 431 So. 2d 808 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
State v. Marchese 430 So. 2d 1303 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Vaughn 431 So. 2d 358 La. 1983
State v. Gremillion 428 So. 2d 940 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Humphrey 412 So. 2d 507 La. 1982
State v. Lindsey 404 So. 2d 466 La. 1981
State v. Russell 397 So. 2d 1319 La. 1981
State v. Hathorn 395 So. 2d 783 La. 1981
State v. Stevenson 390 So. 2d 1292 La. 1980
State v. Martin 376 So. 2d 300 La. 1979
cf. United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 , 94 S.Ct.
State v. Brown 371 So. 2d 751 La. 1979
State v. Parsley 369 So. 2d 1292 La. 1979
State v. Lewis 367 So. 2d 1155 La. 1979
State v. Benson 368 So. 2d 716 La. 1979
State v. Leggett 363 So. 2d 434 La. 1978
941 , (1972) for the proposition that to try a man in prison clothing infringes on the presumption of innocence and the defendant is required to be tried free of the stigma of prison clothes, because prison attire might unduly connote guilt.
State v. Kelt 362 So. 2d 751 La. 1978
The court may modify its order in the interest of justice.” we stated: “The purpose of the article is to prevent the witnesses being influenced by prior testimony and to strengthen the role of cross-examination in developing the facts.
State v. Ferguson 358 So. 2d 1214 La. 1978
654 (1921); State v. Cooley, 260 La.