Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Williams, 358 So. 2d 943.

23 citing documents.

State v. Dixon 146 So. 3d 662 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2014
See, (the conduct proscribed by La.
State v. Wiggins 139 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State of Louisiana v. James Jones La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
art. 765 provides for “[T]he presentation of the evidence of the state, and of the defendant, and of the state in rebuttal,” as well as “[T]he argument of the state, the defendant, and the state in rebuttal.” the supreme court found no merit in the defendant’s claim that the statutory order of argument was unconstitutional because he was not allowed to rebut the State’s rebuttal.
State v. Jones 45 So. 3d 1136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
art. 765 provides for “[T]he presentation of the evidence of the state, and of the defendant, and of the state in rebuttal,” as well as “[T]he argument of the state, the defendant, and the state in rebuttal.” the supreme court found no merit in the defendant’s claim that the statutory order of argument was unconstitutional because he was not allowed to rebut the State’s rebuttal.
State v. Baker 970 So. 2d 948 La. 2008
State v. White 907 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
State v. Williams 788 So. 2d 515 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
this Court therefore upheld the validity of La.R.S.
State v. President 715 So. 2d 745 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
State v. Williams, [ ] supra at 946.
State v. Rolen 662 So. 2d 446 La. 1995
this Court therefore upheld the validity of La.R.S.
State v. Moore 663 So. 2d 41 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
that the statute prohibiting possession of a firearm by one previously convicted of a felony, La.R.S.
State v. Authement 663 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
that the statute prohibiting possession of a firearm by one previously convicted of a felony, La.R.S.
State v. Cossey 663 So. 2d 44 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
that the statute prohibiting possession of a firearm by one previously convicted of a felony, La.R.S.
Bancroft v. Louisiana Dept. of Corr. 635 So. 2d 738 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
State v. Camp 517 So. 2d 1202 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
State v. Harris 511 So. 2d 803 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
4th Cir.1983), writ denied was wrongly decided and should be overruled since it conflicts with the Supreme Court’s
State v. Barnes 503 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
In the Jackson case, proscribed the enhancement of the penalty for a violation of R.S.
State v. Davis 499 So. 2d 1311 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
Defendant argues, however, that Jackson was wrongly decided, relying on several Louisiana Supreme Court decisions:
State v. Bullock 476 So. 2d 1008 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Theard 466 So. 2d 791 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
in support of his argument.
State v. Jackson 438 So. 2d 730 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
proscribed the enhancement of the penalty for a violation of R.S.
Distinguished State v. Wiggins 432 So. 2d 234 La. 1983
State v. Clement 368 So. 2d 1037 La. 1979
State Ex Rel. Bickman v. Dees 367 So. 2d 283 La. 1978
State v. Guidry, 169 La.