DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Bonanno, 373 So. 2d 1284.

46 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Scot Martin Kidd La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
    State v. Stracener, 94- 998 (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. Robert Glen Coleman 188 So. 3d 174 La. 2016
  • State of Louisiana v. Christopher Joseph Sillmon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
  • State v. Delco 943 So. 2d 1143 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    1017 , 71 L.Ed.2d 305 (1982) and State v. *1153 Bonanno, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a statement properly admitted during the case-in-chief may be replayed or repeated during closing arguments.
  • State v. Jefferson 922 So. 2d 577 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
    Ginger Roberts Berrigan, Louisiana Criminal Trial Practice § 23-3 (3d ed.1998)( (La.
  • State v. Matthis 775 So. 2d 558 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
  • State v. Calhoun 776 So. 2d 1188 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    the defendants sought a mistrial when the State told the jury during closing arguments that there had been twenty-six recent indictments for distribution of drugs.
  • State v. Dauzart 769 So. 2d 1206 La. 2000
  • State v. Pickrom 732 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • State v. Domino 708 So. 2d 1143 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    State v. McCants, 93-1703, pp. 4-5 (La.App.
  • State v. Johnson 633 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
  • State v. Bennett 617 So. 2d 550 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
  • State v. Owens 567 So. 2d 806 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
  • State v. Hall 549 So. 2d 373 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Tupa 515 So. 2d 516 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    art. 841; , 736 (La.1982); -9 (La.1979).
  • State v. Thomas 504 So. 2d 907 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Zeno 499 So. 2d 1342 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    although defendant is not entitled to discover the substance of statements made to a private citizen, on proper motion, defendant is entitled to discover the existence of the oral statement with corresponding information relative to when, where and to whom such statement was made.” Following the Court in Fr
  • State v. Oliver 499 So. 2d 295 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    See State v. Marmillion, supra ; (La.
  • State v. Williams 472 So. 2d 277 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Rankin 454 So. 2d 880 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Williams 452 So. 2d 1299 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Caillier 450 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Gabriel 450 So. 2d 611 La. 1984
    15:493; at 1291 (La.1979); at 813 (La.1976).
  • State v. Booth 448 So. 2d 1363 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
    defense counsel sought to cross-examine an agent of the Drug Enforcement Agency concerning the identity of an informant.
  • State v. Freeman 447 So. 2d 1145 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    although defendant is not entitled to discover the substance of statements made to a private citizen, on proper motion, defendant is entitled to discover the existence of the oral statement with corresponding information relative to when, where and to whom such statement was made.
  • State v. Sterling 444 So. 2d 273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Bellows 442 So. 2d 889 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Celestine 443 So. 2d 1091 La. 1983
  • State v. Wise 434 So. 2d 1308 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Willis 438 So. 2d 605 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    State v. Naas, supra; State v. Jones, supra; LSA-C.
  • State v. Walker 432 So. 2d 1057 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    commented upon the defendant's failure to call to the court's attention the need for, and his entitlement to, an order mandating the discovery of the information sought, stating: "Notwithstanding his status as the moving party in connection with the discovery motion, the defendant did not provoke a hearing
  • State v. Knighton 436 So. 2d 1141 La. 1983
  • State v. Sanders 431 So. 2d 833 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Vaughn 431 So. 2d 763 La. 1983
    State v. Jones, 408 S.2d, 1285 (La.1982)
  • State v. Telsee 425 So. 2d 1251 La. 1983
  • State v. Brown 421 So. 2d 854 La. 1982
  • State v. Shea 421 So. 2d 200 La. 1982
  • State v. Quimby 419 So. 2d 951 La. 1982
  • State v. McDonald 414 So. 2d 735 La. 1982
  • State v. Jones 408 So. 2d 1285 La. 1982
  • State v. Naas 409 So. 2d 535 La. 1981
  • State v. Garrison 400 So. 2d 874 La. 1981
  • In Interest of Franklin 399 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • State v. Guiden 399 So. 2d 194 La. 1981
  • State v. Bodley 394 So. 2d 584 La. 1981
    this Court found that the failure to give an art. 716 notice should be analyzed for prejudice where, as here, the prosecution has given notice of its intent to use telephone conversations of the accused within a day or two of the offense and, in addition, supplies the defense with a list of its witnesses, i
  • State v. Fisher 380 So. 2d 1340 La. 1980