Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Lee, 346 So. 2d 682.

66 citing documents.

State Of Louisiana v. Reyhane Tyrone McKnight La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
1979) ( per curiam); La.
State of Louisiana v. Marvin Santiago La. 2024
The requirement that an objection be raised contemporaneously is not meant to be inflexible but is designed “to promote judicial efficiency and to insure fair play.” (La.
State of Louisiana v. Robert Allen McPhearson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
The requirement that objection be raised contemporaneously is not meant to be inflexible, but is designed “to promote judicial efficiency and to insure fair play.” (La.
State of Louisiana Versus Gilbert J. Burciaga La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
The requirement that objection be raised contemporaneously is not meant to be inflexible, but is designed “to promote judicial efficiency and to insure fair play.” (La.
State of Louisiana v. Allen Joseph Fontenot La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
The requirement that objection be raised contemporaneously is not meant to be inflexible, but is designed “to promote judicial efficiency and to insure fair play.” (La.
State Of Louisiana v. Tabvis Lavel Williams La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
1979) ( per curiam); La.
State of Louisiana v. Jewel Demon Humphrey La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
The requirement that objection be raised contemporaneously is not meant to be inflexible, but is designed “to promote judicial efficiency and to insure fair play.” (La.
State Of Louisiana v. Kevin Abimael Guzman La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2022
State of Louisiana Versus Jose M. Sagastume La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
The requirement that an objection be raised contemporaneously is not meant to be inflexible, but is designed “to promote judicial efficiency and to insure fair play.” (La.
State of Louisiana v. Eddie Lee O'brien, II La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
The requirement that objection be raised contemporaneously is not meant to be inflexible, but is designed “to promote judicial efficiency and to insure fair play.” (La.
State of Louisiana v. Erick Gail Gragg La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
The requirement that objection be raised contemporaneously is not meant to be inflexible, but is designed “to promote judicial efficiency and to insure fair play.” (La.
State of Louisiana Versus Marvin Acevedo La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2021
3 In response to relator’s motion, the State filed a “Motion to Bar Reopening of Previously Litigated Motions.” 21-K-164 3 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Jamal Christopher Lacon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
3 Cir. 6/2/04), -71, this court discussed contemporaneous objections as follows: Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 841 states in pertinent part, “[a]n irregularity or error cannot be availed of after verdict unless it was objected to at the time of occurrence.” to say that the error must be brought to the judge’s attention within a reasonable time.
State of Louisiana v. Raven Lamar Wiltz La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
3 Cir. 6/2/04), -71, this court discussed contemporaneous objections as follows: Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 841 states in pertinent part, “[a]n irregularity or error cannot be availed of after verdict unless it was objected to at the time of occurrence.” to say that the error must be brought to the judge’s attention within a reasonable time.
State of Louisiana v. Desmyne Joseph Henry La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
State of Louisiana v. Randy Keith Baldridge, II -Aka- Randy Baldridge La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
The requirement that objection be raised contemporaneously is not meant to be inflexible, but is designed “to promote judicial efficiency and to insure fair play.” (La.
State of Louisiana v. Prince Record La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
The requirement that objection be raised contemporaneously is not meant to be inflexible, but is designed “to promote judicial efficiency and to insure fair play.” (La.
State v. Record 266 So. 3d 592 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
State v. Lee , , 684 (La.
State of Louisiana v. George D. Lowdins La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
The requirement that objection be raised contemporaneously is not meant to be inflexible, but is designed “to promote judicial efficiency and to insure fair play.” (La.
State v. Lowdins 229 So. 3d 547 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
and to insure fair play.” (La.
State of Louisiana v. Jeffrey Clark 220 So. 3d 583 La. 2016
The requirement that objection be raised contemporaneously is not meant to be inflexible, but is designed “to promote judicial efficiency and to insure fair play.” (La.
State of Louisiana v. Asa Bentley AKA - Asa N. Bentley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
-85 (La.1977), the supreme court addressed La.Code Crim.P.
State v. Bentley 182 So. 3d 1269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
-85 (La.1977), the supreme court addressed- La.Code Crim.P.
State v. Crandell 987 So. 2d 375 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
State of Louisiana v. Kiley M. Williams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 841 states in pertinent part, “[a]n irregularity or error cannot be availed of after verdict unless it was objected to at the time of occurrence.” to say that the error must be brought to the judge’s attention within a reasonable time.
State v. Williams 878 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
to say that the error must be brought to the judge's attention within a reasonable time.
State v. Rochon 733 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State v. Jackson 734 So. 2d 658 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
State v. Davis 726 So. 2d 500 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
State v. Carvis Webb. State of Louisiana V. Dalmaus Jacobs. 704 So. 2d 240 La. 1997
(“The requirement that objection be raised contemporaneously is not meant to be inflexible, but is designed ‘to promote judicial efficiency and to insure fair play.’”) ().
State v. Allen 682 So. 2d 713 La. 1996
807 , (1957), rev'd on other grounds, (La.
State v. Colligan 679 So. 2d 184 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
State v. Rosette 653 So. 2d 80 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
State v. Boutte 635 So. 2d 617 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
: "Our rules are not intended to be available for manipulation by the defense or by the state."
State v. Clay 612 So. 2d 266 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
and cases cited therein.
State v. Jones 588 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
State v. Crockett 583 So. 2d 593 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
cited by defendant, the prosecutor, during rebuttal argument, made several references to defendant's first trial, and "two very specific references" to the fact that on that first trial the defendant had been convicted of murder.
State v. Ebarb 558 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Lindsey 543 So. 2d 886 La. 1989
"When a conviction is reversed on appeal, our law requires that a retrial shall be conducted `with as little prejudice to either party as if it had never been tried.'" (citing La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Warren 538 So. 2d 1036 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
State v. Mullins 537 So. 2d 386 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
However, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: "What our rules require is that counsel bring an error to the attention of the trial judge within a reasonable time after the error or declare a mistrial.
State v. Copeland 530 So. 2d 526 La. 1988
State v. LeBlanc 517 So. 2d 951 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
State v. Shoemaker 500 So. 2d 385 La. 1987
See, also, where this court stated that the contemporaneous objection rule is not inflexible, but is "intended *389 to promote judicial efficiency and to insure fair play."
State v. Vanderpool 493 So. 2d 574 La. 1986
State v. Mire 492 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
However, objections which come shortly thereafter will be considered timely
State v. Coleman 486 So. 2d 995 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
State v. Sisk 444 So. 2d 315 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
for the proposition that a motion for a mistrial is timely when it is made upon conclusion of the opening or closing statement.
State v. Gomez 441 So. 2d 747 La. 1983
State v. Allen 431 So. 2d 808 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983