Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Bennett, 345 So. 2d 1129.

152 citing documents.

State v. Gurley 565 So. 2d 1055 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
: Appropriate considerations in determining whether the accused is fully aware of the nature of the proceedings include: whether he understands the nature of the charge and can appreciate its seriousness; whether he understands what defenses are available; whether he can distinguish a guilty plea from a
State v. Ashworth 554 So. 2d 271 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Guy 542 So. 2d 719 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
896 , 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975)
State v. Brooks 541 So. 2d 801 La. 1989
Specifically, (on rehearing), that he is incompetent to stand trial due to moderate to severe mental retardation and organic brain damage.
State v. Herring 527 So. 2d 379 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Pravata 522 So. 2d 606 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Harris 518 So. 2d 590 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Perry 502 So. 2d 543 La. 1986
set forth the appropriate considerations which a trial judge must use in the determination of competency: Appropriate considerations in determining whether the accused is fully aware of the nature of the proceedings include: whether he understands the nature of the charge and can appreciate its seriousness
State v. Huckaby 495 So. 2d 404 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
The appropriate considerations that the trial judge should apply in determining the defendant’s where it stated: “The decision as to a defendant’s competency to stand trial should not turn solely upon whether he suffers from a mental disease or defect, but must be made with specific reference to the nature of the charge, the complexity of the case and the gravity of the decisions with which he is face
State v. Horton 487 So. 2d 602 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
the Supreme Court held that the trial judge's general charge adequately explained the legal consequences of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.
State v. Braggs 487 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
State v. Roux 487 So. 2d 1226 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
State v. Lowenfield 495 So. 2d 1245 La. 1986
State v. Freeman 482 So. 2d 1078 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Collatt 477 So. 2d 177 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
State v. Smith 471 So. 2d 954 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
and voiced the opinion that defendant was not fully aware of the nature of the proceedings against him and could not assist in his defense.
State v. Holmes 467 So. 2d 1177 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
The lead case interpreting article 641 and applying it to the facts of a
State v. Sanders 463 So. 2d 1022 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Nicholas 462 So. 2d 1295 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State v. Felo 454 So. 2d 1150 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Charles 450 So. 2d 1287 La. 1984
State v. Thompson 429 So. 2d 862 La. 1983
State v. Narcisse 426 So. 2d 118 La. 1983
The various criteria which should be considered in evaluating a : "...
State v. Brogdon 426 So. 2d 158 La. 1983
State v. Rogers 419 So. 2d 840 La. 1982
State v. Lefevre 419 So. 2d 862 La. 1982
State v. Brown 414 So. 2d 689 La. 1982
State v. Edwards 406 So. 2d 1331 La. 1981
State v. Lawrence, supra ; ).
State v. Harris 406 So. 2d 128 La. 1981
defendant "has a right to demand that the [court-ordered sanity] hearing be thorough and cannot be held responsible for the commission's failure to complete its task."
State v. Price 403 So. 2d 660 La. 1981
State v. Coleman 395 So. 2d 704 La. 1981
in which this court cautioned trial courts not to base judgments regarding capacity to stand trial only on conclusory opinions of experts unsupported by enumerated factors.
State v. Williams 397 So. 2d 520 La. 1981
See, State v. Bennett, La., .
State v. Holmes 393 So. 2d 670 La. 1981
The various criteria which should be considered in evaluating a : "...
State v. Rochon 393 So. 2d 1224 La. 1981
State v. Kenner 384 So. 2d 413 La. 1980
State v. Williams 381 So. 2d 439 La. 1980
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 , 80 S.Ct.
State v. Foote 379 So. 2d 1058 La. 1980
State v. Sonnier 379 So. 2d 1336 La. 1980
While this Court is sensitive to the plight of an indigent who must rely on findings of a sanity commission appointed by the court to examine him, (on rehearing), the trial court is not required to reappoint sanity commissions until one produces a result with which the defendant agrees.
State v. Bolden 380 So. 2d 40 La. 1980
State v. Qualls 377 So. 2d 293 La. 1979
State v. Jones 376 So. 2d 125 La. 1979
on rehearing, 1977, what is required by due process is "a level of effective participation by an accused in criminal proceedings against him."
State v. Gwinn 373 So. 2d 1304 La. 1979
896 , 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975); (on rehearing).
State v. Hamilton 373 So. 2d 179 La. 1979
State v. Coco 371 So. 2d 803 La. 1979
State v. Knox 370 So. 2d 886 La. 1979
-58 (La.1978); -39 (La.1977).
State v. Collins 370 So. 2d 533 La. 1979
Both the district attorney and the judge examined the witnesses closely with respect to considerations pertaining to the nature of the charge, the complexity of the case and the gravity of the decisions with which the defendant was faced, in which we stated: "The decision as to a defendant's competency to stand trial should not turn solely upon whether he suffers from a mental disease or defect, but must be made with specific reference to the nature of the charge, the complexity of the case and
State v. Jones 368 So. 2d 1023 La. 1979
State v. Lawrence 368 So. 2d 699 La. 1979
State v. Clark 367 So. 2d 311 La. 1979
State v. Weber 364 So. 2d 952 La. 1978
State v. Bennett, La., (1977); State v. Morris, La., (1976); State v. Veal, La., (1976).