Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Stoltz, 358 So. 2d 1249.

16 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Edward R. Budd La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
La. 2020
exists to the general rule when the successful proponent of a motion to suppress in the district court offers additional reasons a reviewing court should sustain the district court’s ruling, which reasons can be evaluated by the reviewing court without venturing beyond the record: It is settled that a new basis for an objection may not be urged for the first time on appeal, (La.
State of Louisiana v. Marcus Donte Reed 200 So. 3d 291 La. 2016
State v. Smith 144 So. 3d 867 La. 2014
State v. Butler 117 So. 3d 87 La. 2013
It is settled that a new basis for an objection may not be urged for the first time on appeal, and the rule encompasses a new basis for suppressing evidence urged for the first time on appeal as a reason for overturning a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress.
State v. Pham 119 So. 3d 202 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2013
State v. Carter 84 So. 3d 499 La. 2012
State v. Holmes 5 So. 3d 42 La. 2008
Accordingly, subject to Rule 28 review, given this Court's settled rule that a new basis for an objection may not be urged for the first time on appeal, we find the defendant waived any claim based on admission of this evidence.
State v. Blank 955 So. 2d 90 La. 2007
art. 841; (new basis for an objection may not be urged for the first time on appeal); (same); (same).
State v. Deal 802 So. 2d 1254 La. 2001
State v. Falls 735 So. 2d 628 La. 1999
State v. Trahan 576 So. 2d 1 La. 1991
State v. Cook 396 So. 2d 1258 La. 1981
State v. Jones 386 So. 2d 85 La. 1980
art. 841, this Court has not taken the same attitude where the defendant complains of an excessive sentence *87 and where the trial judge imposes a sentence with inadequate compliance with the mandatory requirement of La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Skipper 387 So. 2d 592 La. 1980
art. 841; for the reason that any such objection should first be made in the trial court in order that the trial judge be presented with the opportunity to correct any such error.
State v. Leemans 362 So. 2d 1113 La. 1978