Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Holmes, 347 So. 2d 221.

34 citing documents.

State v. Kennedy 803 So. 2d 916 La. 2001
672 , (1971), overruled on other grounds
State v. Wright 693 So. 2d 728 La. 1997
State v. Allen 682 So. 2d 713 La. 1996
State v. Weiland 540 So. 2d 1288 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
State v. McKnight 539 So. 2d 952 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
672 , (1971), overruled on other grounds (La.
State v. Ancar 508 So. 2d 943 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
State v. Cathey 493 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
State v. Jarreau 476 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
The defendant must be given wide latitude in the exercise of this substantial right, and pertinent inquires should be allowed if they can possibly show grounds for a challenge for cause, or if they will enable counsel to make intelligent use of peremptory challenges.
State v. Sexton 477 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Blunt 449 So. 2d 128 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Jackson 450 So. 2d 621 La. 1984
State v. Robinson 442 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
It is well settled that a defendant is permitted to question a prospective juror during voir dire as to whether they have previously served on a criminal jury, what the charge was, what the verdict was
State v. Hughes 436 So. 2d 677 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
which said that it would be impossible for various defense attorneys who practice in Criminal District Court to set up a system similar to the comprehensive procedure currently used in the district attorney's office.
State v. Smith 430 So. 2d 31 La. 1983
State v. Simmons 422 So. 2d 138 La. 1982
State v. Age 417 So. 2d 1183 La. 1982
overruled prior jurisprudence and held that: "* * * [I]t is permissible for defendant to ask prospective jurors during voir dire questions such as: (1) Have you ever served on a criminal jury before?
State v. Frith 412 So. 2d 1000 La. 1982
In Hayes, this Court further stated: "The defendant must be given wide latitude in the exercise of this substantial right, State v. Holmes (La.
State v. Nicholas 397 So. 2d 1308 La. 1981
this court, in overruling prior jurisprudence, held that "...
State v. Williams 389 So. 2d 60 La. 1980
State v. Lewis 367 So. 2d 1155 La. 1979
State v. McGraw 366 So. 2d 1278 La. 1979
Moreover, this Court found defendant's request for lists premature because voir dire examination had not been conducted and defendant had not shown that he could not get the information by other means (i. e. by questioning jurors on voir dire).
State v. Kelly 367 So. 2d 832 La. 1979
The three assignments deal with the alleged curtailment of voir dire, but Assignment Number 14, became final cannot avail defendant, whose trial concluded prior to that decision.
State v. Welch 368 So. 2d 965 La. 1979
State v. Hayes 364 So. 2d 923 La. 1978
The defendant must be given wide latitude in the exercise of this substantial right, State v. Hills, 241 La.
State v. Swift 363 So. 2d 499 La. 1978
State v. Marrero 363 So. 2d 494 La. 1978
In his per curiam, the state was not required to disclose the information because the defendant could obtain it from the Office of the Indigent Defender Program.
State v. Kelly 362 So. 2d 1071 La. 1978
State v. Boen 362 So. 2d 519 La. 1978
State v. Harvey 358 So. 2d 1224 La. 1978
State v. Jackson 358 So. 2d 1263 La. 1978
State v. Sutfield 354 So. 2d 1334 La. 1978
State v. Singleton 352 So. 2d 191 La. 1977
Moreover, this Court found defendant's request for lists premature because voir dire examination had not been conducted and defendant had not shown that he could not get the information by other means (i. e. by questioning jurors on voir dire).
State v. McGhee 350 So. 2d 370 La. 1977
State v. Rey 351 So. 2d 489 La. 1977
*493 the defendant's request was deemed premature because the voir dire had not yet been conducted.