Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Reaves, 376 So. 2d 136.

110 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Merlin P. Dejean La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana v. Quinton Verdell Tellis La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
State v. Love, supra, (La.
State of Louisiana Versus Josue Hernandez-Romero La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972), (La.
State of Louisiana v. Marlin Devary Demouchet La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
at 2192–93; (adopting Barker factors).
State of Louisiana v. Fred Reimonenq La. 2019
This Court further found: [T]he record fails to suggest that the state simply sought a tactical advantage over the defense, or that it was whipsawing defense 5 of 9 witnesses by forcing them to make repeated but futile trips to the courthouse, as opposed to struggling to put its case together by identifying and summoning the appropriate witnesses.
State v. Andrews (In re Andrews) 255 So. 3d 1106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972) ; see also , State v. Reaves , (La.
State v. Ioveniti 238 So. 3d 496 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
4 Cir. 10/9/13), , 667, ( , 137-138 (La.1979) ): In making the determination of whether a given issue is appropriate to raise in a motion to quash, a court should determine whether 'it is a defense which, if successful, requires dismissal of the indictment [or bill of information] regardless of the merits of the charge ...
State of Louisiana v. William Felix Vail La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
at 2192-93; 50 (adopting Barker factors).
State v. Vail 236 So. 3d 644 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
at 2192-93 ; see also State v. Reaves , (adopting Barker factors).
State v. Papizan 256 So. 3d 1091 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
5/6/11), , 619 ; , 138 (La.
State v. Otkins-Victor 193 So. 3d 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Cowger, supra at 286 ; see also Doggett v. United States, 605 U.S. 647 , 112 S.Ct.
State v. Victor 195 So. 3d 128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Cowger, supra at 286 ; see also Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 , 112 S.Ct.
State of Louisiana Versus Errol Victor, Sr. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2016
Cowger, supra at 286; (La.
State v. Brown 193 So. 3d 267 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
(a defendant may raise a claim of denial of his federal and state constitutional speedy trial rights by a motion to quash); La.
State v. Ellis 190 So. 3d 354 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Noel 151 So. 3d 706 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 4/3/96), , writ denied, 96-0979 (La.9/27/96), (“[T]he delay tolerable for a simple street crime is considerably less than that for a serious complex, conspiracy charge”) ().
State v. Jones 146 So. 3d 833 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Pierre 146 So. 3d 681 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
at 2192-93 ; (adopting the Barker factors).
State v. Martin 141 So. 3d 933 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
(quoting Barker, supra)(“ ‘the delay tolerable for the simplest street crime is considerably less than for a serious complex conspiracy charge’ ”).
State v. Quinn 136 So. 3d 267 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
() (quoting Barker, 407 U.S. at 531 , 92 S.Ct.
State v. Anderson 132 So. 3d 1265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
at 2192-93 ; (adopting Barker factors).
State v. Marcelin 131 So. 3d 427 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2013
State v. Hall 127 So. 3d 30 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
-38 (La.1979) (a motion to quash is the proper procedural mechanism for a defendant to assert a violation of his or her constitutional right to a speedy trial).
State v. Franklin 126 So. 3d 663 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2013
-138 (La.1979); State v. Moten, 99-552, p. 2 (La.App.
State v. Napoleon 119 So. 3d 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Cowger, 581 So.2d at 286 ; See also Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 , 112 S.Ct.
State of Louisiana v. Ernest D'Wayne Derryberry La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. McQuirter 108 So. 3d 370 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
the State continued a defendant’s trial at least four times due to the absence of a police officer.
State of Louisiana v. Robert Daniel Wilkins La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
at 2192-93; (adopting Barker factors).
State v. Wilkins 94 So. 3d 983 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
at 2192-93 ; (adopting Barker factors).
State v. Luther 91 So. 3d 560 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Williams 89 So. 3d 422 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
The Court further noted: [T]he record fails to suggest that the state simply sought a tactical advantage over the defense, or that it was whipsawing defense witnesses by forcing them to make repeated but futile trips to the courthouse, as opposed to struggling to put its case together by identifying and summoning the appropriate witnesses.
State v. Brown 88 So. 3d 662 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Hayes 75 So. 3d 8 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2011
State v. Dillon 72 So. 3d 473 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. King 60 So. 3d 615 La. 2011
However, as Judge Kuhn emphasized in his dissent, the record fails to suggest that the state simply sought a tactical advantage over the defense, or that it was whipsawing defense witnesses by forcing them to make repeated but futile trips to the courthouse, as opposed to struggling to put its case together by identifying and summoning the appropriate witnesses.
State of Louisiana v. Ricky Joseph Langley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
at 2192-93; (adopting Barker factors).
State v. Langley 61 So. 3d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
at 2192-93; (adopting Barker factors).
State of Louisiana v. C.W. W. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
at 2192-93; (adopting Barker factors).
State of Louisiana v. Steven Mark Marc" Anderson " La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. Anderson 48 So. 3d 1202 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. Rainey 43 So. 3d 1090 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Thurman 30 So. 3d 1185 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Bell 28 So. 3d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
*508 (citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 531 , 92 S.Ct.
State v. Gaines 5 So. 3d 915 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
3 is instructive on length of delay in a simple case: Reaves was not subjected to an extremely long delay.
State v. Zachary 995 So. 2d 631 La. 2008
the defendant was charged with possession of one marijuana cigarette, a simple misdemeanor offense.
State v. Severin 985 So. 2d 277 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
State v. Stewart 983 So. 2d 166 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
State v. Chisolm 983 So. 2d 191 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
"[t]his Court has assiduously followed the Barker v. Wingo analysis in evaluating Louisiana speedy trial claims."
State v. Gauthier 978 So. 2d 1161 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
State v. Gibson 971 So. 2d 389 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007