DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Leggett, 363 So. 2d 434.

109 citing documents.

  • State v. Bridgewater 823 So. 2d 877 La. 2002
  • State v. Robinson 818 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    However, “the right to choose one’s attorney is a right to be exercised at a reasonable time, in a reasonable manner, and at an appropriate stage within the procedural framework of the criminal justice system.”
  • State v. Barr 806 So. 2d 137 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
  • State v. Jeselink 799 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
  • State v. Griffin 793 So. 2d 415 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
  • State v. Williams 786 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
  • State v. Harrison 782 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
  • State v. Calhoun 776 So. 2d 1188 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    (citations omitted), the supreme court stated: Both the federal and state constitutions provide that the accused has the right to counsel of his own choosing to defend him on a criminal charge.
  • State v. Marshall 774 So. 2d 244 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
  • State v. Ricard 751 So. 2d 393 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
  • State v. Flanagan 744 So. 2d 718 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • State v. Trepagnier 744 So. 2d 181 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
  • State v. Divine 738 So. 2d 614 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
  • State v. Spradley 722 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
  • State v. Coleman 714 So. 2d 859 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    State v. Seiss, supra [ ]
  • State v. Jones 707 So. 2d 975 La. 1998
  • State v. Egana 703 So. 2d 223 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    1691 , 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976); (on rehearing); State v. Tennant, 262 La.
  • State v. Kennerson 702 So. 2d 867 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    “A proper foundation | ¡¡for admission in evidence of a photograph is laid when witnesses, *869 having personal knowledge of the item or incident depicted by the photograph, identify it.”
  • State v. Kennerson 702 So. 2d 860 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
  • State v. Albert 697 So. 2d 1355 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
  • State v. Johnson 693 So. 2d 233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
  • State v. Thomas 683 So. 2d 1272 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
  • State v. Hayes 670 So. 2d 683 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
  • State v. Simon 607 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
  • State v. Williams 605 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
  • State v. Anderson 603 So. 2d 776 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    1691 , 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976); (on rehearing); (La.
  • State v. Brown 585 So. 2d 1211 La. 1991
    1691 , 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976); State v. Spellman, 562 * (on rehearing); State v. Tennant, 262 La.
  • State v. Roberts 569 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
  • State v. Jones 565 So. 2d 1023 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
  • State v. Spellman 562 So. 2d 455 La. 1990
    1691 , 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976); -964 (La.1979) (on rehearing); (La.
  • State v. Mitchell 553 So. 2d 915 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    When examining this issue on appeal, the court has focused on whether the defendant demonstrated that his clothing at trial was readily identifiable as prison attire, (La.App.
  • State v. Kimble 546 So. 2d 834 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • State v. Brown 537 So. 2d 1252 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
  • State v. McClintock 535 So. 2d 1231 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    3rd Cir.1987); Seiss, supra
  • State v. Issac 527 So. 2d 1045 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
    State v. Champion, supra at 1050 ; State v. Johnson, supra at 1304 ; State v. Lee, supra at 1028
  • State v. Bibbens 525 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Monroe 513 So. 2d 323 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    State v. Boudoin, 257 La.
  • State v. Moten 510 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    State v. Robertson, 454 So.2d at 210 .
  • State v. Simms 505 So. 2d 981 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Smith 504 So. 2d 1070 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Fraley 499 So. 2d 1304 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
    When examining this issue on appeal, the court has focused on whether the defendant demonstrated that his clothing at trial was readily identifiable as prison attire, (La.App.
  • State v. Woods 494 So. 2d 1258 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    the dangerous weapon test was met where the weapon used was an "air pistol or pellet pistol" which could possibly kill or cause great bodily harm.
  • State v. Buttner 489 So. 2d 970 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
  • State v. Claiborne 483 So. 2d 1301 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
    When examining this issue on appeal, the court has focused on whether the defendant demonstrated that his clothing at trial was readily identifiable as prison attire, and whether he was prejudiced by wearing the prison clothing.
  • State v. Conger 483 So. 2d 1100 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
    Estelle v. Williams, supra
  • State v. Fournier 465 So. 2d 963 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Photographs are generally “admissible in evidence when they are shown to have been accurately taken, to be a correct representation of the subject in controversy, and when they tend to shed light upon the matter before the court.” (citations omitted); (citations omitted).
  • State v. Murphy 463 So. 2d 812 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • State v. Bessard 461 So. 2d 1201 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, at 436 (La.1978), has addressed this precise issue.
  • State v. Robertson 454 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Palmer 447 So. 2d 1159 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984