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. Carthan, 377 So. 2d 308.

80 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Jkari Campbell La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
  • State of Louisiana v. Joshua J. Boutte La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
  • State of Louisiana v. James D. Flemones La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
  • State of Louisiana v. Louie Von Cole La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
  • State of Louisiana v. George D. Lowdins La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
    the prospective juror had known the State‟s attorney since high school, considered him a friend, and saw him from time to time at social events.
  • State v. Lowdins 229 So. 3d 547 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
  • State v. Carper 107 So. 3d 118 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, however, has found that the rule forbidding leading questions may “yield somewhat to the trial court’s discretion in the examination of young victims.” State v. Abbott, 29,497 (La.App.2d Cir.06/18/97), , writ denied, 97-1929 (La.01/09/98)
  • State v. Williams 81 So. 3d 220 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
  • State v. Vargas 66 So. 3d 29 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Bradley , 44,963 at 10, 33 So.3d at 937 ; (whether the defendant consented a fact to be determined by all of the facts and circumstances of the case; the trial judge’s conclusions on credibility are entitled to great weight)(citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, supra; (La.19
  • State v. Thomas 36 So. 3d 1178 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    15:440.5(A)(4) prohibit leading questions designed to elicit a particular statement, the Louisiana Supreme Court has held that “[t]he rule forbidding leading questions is not so rigid that it 117should not yield somewhat to the discretion of the trial judge in the examination of a very young or timid witness.” State v. Roberts, 42,417 (La.App.2d Cir.9/19/07), .
  • State v. D.M.J. 996 So. 2d 413 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    2d Cir.06/18/97), , writ denied, 97-1929 (La.01/09/98), , or to elicit specific details from a young victim to clarify an earlier statement.
  • State v. DMJ 996 So. 2d 413 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    App. 2d Cir.06/18/97), , writ denied, 97-1929 (La.01/09/98), , or to elicit specific details from a young victim to clarify an earlier statement.
  • State v. Borden 986 So. 2d 158 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
  • State v. Roberts 966 So. 2d 111 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    2d Cir.6/18/97), , writ denied, 97-1929 (La.1/9/98)
  • State v. Clark 851 So. 2d 1055 La. 2003
    privilege is a bar against compelling `communications' or `testimony,' but that compulsion which makes a suspect or accused the source of `real or physical evidence' does not violate it"); ("[t]esting of bodily evidence ...
  • State v. Myers 839 So. 2d 1183 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    1980); (on rehearing), cert.
  • State v. Abbott 697 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized that the rule forbidding leading questions is not so rigid that it should not yield somewhat to the trial court's discretion in the examination of young witnesses.
  • State v. Barrett 683 So. 2d 331 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
  • State v. Cooper 678 So. 2d 59 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
  • State v. Davis 666 So. 2d 400 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • State v. Dominick 658 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
  • State v. Fisher 628 So. 2d 1136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
  • State v. Pierre 606 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
  • State v. Johnson 595 So. 2d 789 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
  • State v. Otis 586 So. 2d 595 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
  • State v. Weidert 568 So. 2d 1162 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
  • State v. Griffin 563 So. 2d 334 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
  • State v. Collins 546 So. 2d 1246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • State v. Rexrode 536 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
  • State v. Richardson 533 So. 2d 1316 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Headley 522 So. 2d 1269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Durocher 514 So. 2d 581 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Brown 507 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966); (La.App.
  • State v. Martin 486 So. 2d 333 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • State v. Sutton 485 So. 2d 201 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • State v. Bullock 476 So. 2d 1008 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Horton 476 So. 2d 9 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
  • State v. Mitchell 475 So. 2d 61 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
    1979) (challenged venireman's brother was sheriff in another parish); (juror was acquainted with prosecuting attorney); (La.
  • State v. Minnifield 475 So. 2d 108 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • State v. Harriman 469 So. 2d 298 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • State v. Jones 467 So. 2d 147 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966)
  • State v. Gordon 463 So. 2d 665 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
    the Supreme Court pointed out that "the rule forbidding leading questions is not so rigid that it should not yield somewhat to the discretion of the trial judge in the examination of a very young or timid witness".
  • State v. Helsley 457 So. 2d 707 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Casimier 454 So. 2d 1199 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • State v. Handley 453 So. 2d 1242 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Baker 452 So. 2d 737 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Pettaway 450 So. 2d 1345 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Dryer 449 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Jackson 450 So. 2d 621 La. 1984
  • State v. Palmer 447 So. 2d 1159 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984