Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Lee, 346 So. 2d 682.
- State v. Simmons 443 So. 2d 512 La. 1983
- State v. Alexander 430 So. 2d 621 La. 1983
- State v. Smith 418 So. 2d 534 La. 1982
- State v. Moore 414 So. 2d 340 La. 1982
- State v. Wilson 404 So. 2d 968 La. 1981
- State v. MacK 403 So. 2d 8 La. 1981
- State v. Hebert 402 So. 2d 674 La. 1981
- State v. Kennedy 398 So. 2d 1082 La. 1981
-
State v. Brown
395 So. 2d 1301
La. 1981
where this Court stated a prosecutor's prejudicial comments in closing argument may be considered by a federal court to violate federal due process guarantees even in the absence of a defense challenge or objection at trial.
-
State v. Skipper
387 So. 2d 592
La. 1980
State v. Valentine, supra
- State v. Alford 384 So. 2d 761 La. 1980
-
State v. Albert
381 So. 2d 424
La. 1980
Here, the remark did not pin-point defendant as being involved in the previous trials and there was no reference to a conviction.
-
State v. Hayes
364 So. 2d 923
La. 1978
we reversed a trial court ruling which in effect would have allowed the prosecution to repeat prejudicial remarks if the defense did not object to them the first time they were uttered.
-
State v. Batiste
363 So. 2d 639
La. 1978
This principle has been repeated in later cases (see, ) and remains the governing rule today, codified in C.Cr.P.
-
State v. Millet
356 So. 2d 1380
La. 1978
In a we said: "The only effect we can see in counsel's failure to promptly request relief was that the trial was unnecessarily continued beyond a point when it should have been aborted.
- State v. Gaines 347 So. 2d 1153 La. 1977