Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Hamilton, 356 So. 2d 1360.

47 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Donald Alan Crooks La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
ant as to which evidence is not 32 admissible[.]” In so doing, the court abrogated the previous per se prejudicial analysis used to overturn convictions for the erroneous introduction of other crimes evidence, even where such evidence was not objected to
State v. Celestine 131 So. 3d 947 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Kaufman, supra [ ]; (recognizing the stated rule but finding that the prosecutor’s comment did not imply to the jury that he had personal knowledge of facts not presented to them indicating the defendant’s guilt).
State v. Allen 126 So. 3d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Kaufman, [ ]; (recognizing the stated rule but finding that the prosecutor’s comment did not imply to the jury that he had personal knowledge of facts not presented to them indicating the defendant’s guilt)....
State v. Everett 96 So. 3d 605 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
stand for the rule that it is improper for the prosecutor to comment on his personal belief in the defendant’s guilt.
State v. Higginbotham 122 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
The *14 which involved'prejudice to the defendant’s rights and application of the per se rule caused by other types of statements by the prosecutor.
Overruled State v. Barthelemy 32 So. 3d 999 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
v. Baylis, the Louisiana Supreme Court reasoned that when objections to improper remarks are sustained, a request for an admonition should be made: Although this Court has held that where a defendant objects to improper remarks and the objection is overruled, the defendant is not required to make a useless motion for an admonition or a mistrial to preserve his rights on appeal, (La.
State v. Riley 941 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
State v. Kaufman, [ ]; (recognizing the stated rule but finding that the prosecutor's comment did not imply to the jury that he had personal knowledge of facts not presented to them indicating the defendant's guilt).
State of Louisiana v. Robert S. Willis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Art. 774: ” Although the prosecutor’s comments were improper, the court did not reverse the defendant’s conviction because the improper comments did not materially contribute to the verdict based on the fact that the jury
State v. Willis 915 So. 2d 365 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Keys 772 So. 2d 918 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
overruled on other grounds, State v. Johnson, 94-1379, p. 16 (La.11/27/95), -102 .
State v. Birklett 749 So. 2d 817 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
State v. Girod 703 So. 2d 771 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
State v. Langlois 703 So. 2d 1281 La. 1997
(“Recidivism is an area of peculiar importance and traditional concern to the state which is charged with protection of the public and rehabilitation of the criminal who has committed an offense within its jurisdiction”)
State v. Neville 695 So. 2d 534 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
It is argued that, in the absence of either fingerprint or photographic evidence, a overruled on other grounds by State v. Johnson, 94-1379, pp. 16-17 (La.11/27/95), -02 .
State v. Thomas 685 So. 2d 261 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
State v. Johnson 664 So. 2d 94 La. 1995
State v. Boutte 635 So. 2d 617 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
State v. Johnson 631 So. 2d 658 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Overruled State v. Clay 612 So. 2d 266 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
State v. Brewington 587 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
Overruled State v. Bobb 573 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
State v. Jackson 568 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Overruled State v. Dorsey 561 So. 2d 974 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Smith 554 So. 2d 676 La. 1989
State v. Kaufman, supra; (recognizing the stated rule but finding that the prosecutor's comment did not imply to the jury that he had personal knowledge of facts not presented to them indicating the defendant's guilt); see also United States v. Diharce-Estrada, 526 F.2d 637 (5th Cir. 1976); Uni
State v. Martin 539 So. 2d 1235 La. 1989
Overruled State v. Grant 531 So. 2d 1121 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
State v. Theard 527 So. 2d 393 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
Distinguished State v. Moorehead 524 So. 2d 105 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Jackson 482 So. 2d 807 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Byrne 483 So. 2d 564 La. 1986
State v. Pierce 422 So. 2d 1157 La. 1982
State v. Dupre 408 So. 2d 1229 La. 1982
State v. Kersey 406 So. 2d 555 La. 1981
State v. Morris 404 So. 2d 1186 La. 1981
State v. Sayles 395 So. 2d 695 La. 1981
Overruled State v. Bretz 394 So. 2d 245 La. 1981
Overruled State v. Baylis 388 So. 2d 713 La. 1980
Although this court has held that where a defendant objects to improper remarks and the objection is overruled, the defendant is not required to make a useless motion for an admonition or a mistrial to preserve his rights on appeal, (La.
State v. Williams 383 So. 2d 996 La. 1980
State v. Blackwell 377 So. 2d 110 La. 1979
State v. Williams 373 So. 2d 1278 La. 1979
: "Once the objection has been made and overruled, clearly the court would additionally refuse any request for admonition or mistrial.
State v. Muse 367 So. 2d 789 La. 1979
we stated that the statute is not the exclusive method of proving that defendant is a habitual offender
State v. Bernard 366 So. 2d 1294 La. 1978
See also, State v. Maduell, supra.
State v. Duke 362 So. 2d 559 La. 1978
See State v. Hamilton, La., (1978).
Overruled State v. Nicholas 359 So. 2d 965 La. 1978
this court is not barred for such reason from review of a timely objection which is overruled, since a request for such admonition or mistrial would be a vain and futile formality.
State v. Harvey 358 So. 2d 1224 La. 1978
147 , (1972), noted by the author of the above-cited article as a "classic illustration of prosecutorial abuse;" No. 60,630
State v. Boyd 359 So. 2d 931 La. 1978
However, recently, , decided by this court on March 6, 1978, we held that once a defense objection has been overruled, failure to move for mistrial or for admonition does not preclude review of the trial judge's failure to sustain a properly made objection.
State v. Duke 358 So. 2d 293 La. 1978