Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Benson, 368 So. 2d 716.

23 citing documents.

  • State v. White 250 So. 3d 262 La. 2018
  • State of Louisiana v. Darwin Gauthier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
  • State v. Gauthier 916 So. 2d 314 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
  • State v. Gordon 803 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
  • State v. East 745 So. 2d 812 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    The importance of the “circumstances of the particular case”
  • State v. Henderson 684 So. 2d 1054 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
  • State v. Prout 672 So. 2d 933 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
  • State v. Cannon 658 So. 2d 728 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
  • State v. Minor 580 So. 2d 975 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    In support of his argument, 1 wherein the Supreme Court held that denying a Motion for Continuance when important evidence is revealed to the defense only a matter of days prior to trial constitutes an abuse of discretion.
  • State v. Nelson 562 So. 2d 1076 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
  • State v. Hall 549 So. 2d 373 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    in which the state declared its intent to introduce expert handwriting analysis of a robbery note allegedly written by the defendant.
  • State v. Ray 547 So. 2d 1350 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Roy 496 So. 2d 583 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • State v. Wilson 454 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Brooks 452 So. 2d 149 La. 1984
  • State v. Guidry 432 So. 2d 1118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Dupre 408 So. 2d 1229 La. 1982
  • State v. Simpson 403 So. 2d 1214 La. 1981
  • State v. Russell 397 So. 2d 1319 La. 1981
    State v. Parsley, supra; (La.
  • State v. Gordy 380 So. 2d 1347 La. 1980
  • Distinguished State v. Belton 377 So. 2d 1229 La. 1979
    in which we reversed defendant’s conviction because the trial judge denied defendant’s motion for a continuance during which a transcript of the preliminary examination could have been made.
  • State v. Durio 371 So. 2d 1158 La. 1979
    (La.1979), this Court reversed a conviction for denial of a continuance even without a showing that exculpatory evidence would have been presented, and without a specific allegation or showing of prejudice, where counsel, whose diligence was not seriously questioned, had only three days (over a weekend) to evaluate
  • State v. Parsley 369 So. 2d 1292 La. 1979