Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Passman, 345 So. 2d 874.

92 citing documents.

State v. Mitchell 475 So. 2d 61 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Wilson 469 So. 2d 1087 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Simms 465 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State v. Buras 459 So. 2d 756 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Welcome 458 So. 2d 1235 La. 1984
State v. Willis, 262 La.636, (1972)
State v. Pettaway 450 So. 2d 1345 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
With regard to the trial judge's great discretion in this area, the following: We have repeatedly held that the trial judge is vested with broad discretion in ruling on challenges for cause, and only where it appears upon review of the voir dire examination as a whole, that the judge's exercise of that discretion has been arbitrary or unreasonable, resulting in prejudic
State v. White 446 So. 2d 1317 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Marx 446 So. 2d 1313 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Fruge 445 So. 2d 1293 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
State v. Green 443 So. 2d 531 La. 1983
State v. Kirkpatrick 443 So. 2d 546 La. 1983
art. 17; State v. Reeves, 263 La.
State v. Griffin 438 So. 2d 229 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
“The trial judge is vested with broad discretion in ruling on challenges for cause, and only where it appears, upon review of the voir dire examination as a whole, that the judge’s exercise of that discretion has been arbitrary or unreasonable, resulting in prejudice to the accused, will this Court reverse the ruling of the trial judge.”
State v. Foster 437 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
209 , 66 L.Ed.2d 90 (1980); U.S. cert.
State v. Perkins 423 So. 2d 1103 La. 1982
State v. Arnaudville, 170 La.
State v. Hines 422 So. 2d 1297 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
Although generally a defendant is not entitled to the names and addresses of State witnesses [ ], where a determination has been made that "there exist peculiar and distinctive reasons why fundamental fairness requires such discovery", no prohibition of the right of discovery exists.
State v. Stucke 419 So. 2d 939 La. 1982
State v. Walters 408 So. 2d 1337 La. 1982
State v. Talbot 408 So. 2d 861 La. 1981
State v. Edwards 406 So. 2d 1331 La. 1981
at 880 (La.1977) summarizes the considerations governing the exercise of that discretion: this Court set forth the following factors to be considered in determining whether to change venue: * * * (1) (T)he nature of pretrial publicity and the particular degree to which it has
State v. Haarala 398 So. 2d 1093 La. 1981
State v. Smith 398 So. 2d 1090 La. 1981
State v. Claiborne 397 So. 2d 486 La. 1981
(Marcus, J. dissenting opinion); (La.
State v. Brown 395 So. 2d 1301 La. 1981
State v. Rochon 393 So. 2d 1224 La. 1981
State v. Prejean 379 So. 2d 240 La. 1980
[2] the court used the standard for determining if a continuance should have been granted under C.Cr.P.
State v. Sonnier 379 So. 2d 1336 La. 1980
In reference to the trial judge's great discretion in this area, the following: "We have repeatedly held that the trial judge is vested with broad discretion in ruling on challenges for cause, and only where it appears, upon review of the voir dire examination as a whole, that the judge's exercise of that discretion has been arbitrary or unreasonable, resulting in prejud
State v. Mead 377 So. 2d 79 La. 1979
State v. Billiot 370 So. 2d 539 La. 1979
State v. Webb 364 So. 2d 984 La. 1978
State v. Constantine 364 So. 2d 1011 La. 1978
State v. Carter 363 So. 2d 893 La. 1978
art. 841; State v. Anthony, La., (1977); State v. Passman, La., (1977); and State v. Williams, La., (1976).
State v. Drew 360 So. 2d 500 La. 1978
State v. Labostrie 358 So. 2d 1243 La. 1978
State v. Boyd 359 So. 2d 931 La. 1978
this court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing *957 to allow the testimony of witnesses at a motion for new trial when the substance of that testimony was contained in affidavits before the court.
State v. Winfrey 359 So. 2d 73 La. 1978
State v. George, La., (1977); State v. Passman, La., (1977); State v. Weathers, La., (1975).
State v. McCloud 357 So. 2d 1132 La. 1978
State v. Hamilton 356 So. 2d 1360 La. 1978
we held that the trial judge did not err in failing to admonish the jury to disregard an improper comment made by the State's attorney in rebuttal argument when defense counsel had not requested an admonition or a mistrial.
State v. Stripling 354 So. 2d 1297 La. 1978
State v. Robinson 353 So. 2d 1001 La. 1977
State v. Passman, La., (1977), and the numerous cases cited therein.
State v. Sheppard 350 So. 2d 615 La. 1977
State v. Forbes 348 So. 2d 983 La. 1977
See State v. Passman, La., (1977); State v. Johnson, La., (1975).
State v. Williams 347 So. 2d 214 La. 1977