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. Johnson, 389 So. 2d 372.

48 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Dequincy Jamel Lewis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2026
    “A defendant is limited on appeal to the grounds for the objections articulated at trial.”
  • State of Louisiana v. Jaylon K. Brown La. 2024
  • State Of Louisiana v. Ronald St. Cyre La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
    Q. And when those individuals opened fire on your husband, he was 4 ( La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Derrick Walker Stafford -Aka- Derrick Stafford La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
    1316, 1323, the supreme court delineated “certain safeguards regulating the state’s examination of a character witness,” as follows: The trial judge must conduct a hearing out of the presence of the jury to determine whether the prosecutor has sufficient grounds for cross- examining the charact
  • State v. Stafford 241 So. 3d 1060 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    5 Cir. 2/27/96), , 1323, , 376 (La.1980), the supreme court delineated "certain safeguards regulating the state's examination of a character witness," as follows: The trial judge must conduct a hearing out of the presence of the jury to determine whether the prosecutor has sufficient grounds for cross-examining the character witness as to def
  • State v. Law 189 So. 3d 1164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    art. 608 regarding the safeguards the trial court should consider before permitting such questioning.
  • State of Louisiana v. Ricky Joseph Langley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
  • State v. Langley 61 So. 3d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • State of Louisiana v. Robert Wayne Aymond, Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • State v. Aymond 8 So. 3d 795 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • State v. Taylor 985 So. 2d 266 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
  • State v. Durden 842 So. 2d 1244 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    1980); cf. Tyler v. Phelps, 643 F.2d 1095 (5th Cir.1981).
  • State v. Decay 798 So. 2d 1057 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
  • State v. Richardson 795 So. 2d 477 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
  • State v. Asberry 808 So. 2d 472 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    JOHNSON HEARING In assignment of error number 2, the defendant contends the trial court committed reversible error in allowing the State to cross-examine a defense character witness regarding prior arrests without conducting a
  • State v. Henderson 740 So. 2d 240 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    Assignment of Error No. 6: Defendant complains that the prosecution conducted an improper cross-examination of Defendant's character witness, Ronald Monsour.
  • State v. Letulier 750 So. 2d 784 La. 1998
    Julien so that the trial court could make a ruling as to whether it would permit the state to call him as a (La.
  • State v. Sepulvado 672 So. 2d 158 La. 1996
    delineated certain safeguards regulating prosecution cross examination of character witnesses, the ultimate question is whether there was undue jury prejudice from the prosecutor's cross examination.
  • State v. Sterling 670 So. 2d 1316 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
    delineates certain safeguards regulating the state's examination of a character witness.
  • State v. Selvage 644 So. 2d 745 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    168 (1948); -77 (La.1980).
  • State v. Smith 638 So. 2d 452 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
  • State v. Houghton 619 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    set forth five criteria to be used in determining whether a witness could be cross examined about specific instances of misconduct by the accused.
  • State v. Bass 595 So. 2d 820 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
  • State v. Dauzat 590 So. 2d 768 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
    Code of Evidence Article 405 A does permit, on cross examination of a character witness, questions about specific acts which may have been the subject of rumors in the community
  • State v. Kelly 576 So. 2d 111 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
    [2] Although not assigned as error, we note that the state failed to lay a (La.
  • State v. Berryhill 562 So. 2d 1105 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
    To protect a defendant against unfair prejudice that might otherwise occur
  • State v. Brown 546 So. 2d 1265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • State v. Williams 545 So. 2d 1144 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
  • State v. Moten 510 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Johnson 492 So. 2d 145 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    the holding requires the trial court to ascertain, out of the jury’s presence, whether the prosecutor has reasonable grounds for cross-examining the character witness about convictions, arrests or other misconduct of the accused.
  • State v. Miller 489 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
    According to defendant, which requires an inquiry by the judge (outside the presence of the jury) before allowing the introduction of evidence of prior convictions, arrests, or other misconduct.
  • State v. Ford 489 So. 2d 1250 La. 1986
  • State v. Rault 483 So. 2d 141 La. 1986
    Therefore, the Parker ruling, that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to grant a mistrial as the result of the improper question because the witness failed to answer, criteria regulating questioning of character witnesses on prior acts of misconduct by defendants have been met.
  • State v. Johnson 480 So. 2d 878 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • State v. Jackson 450 So. 2d 621 La. 1984
  • State v. Scott 446 So. 2d 448 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • State v. Rault 445 So. 2d 1203 La. 1984
    delineated certain safeguards regulating prosecutor character witness examination.
  • State v. Robinson 441 So. 2d 364 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 1) The trial court committed reversible error [ ] when it failed to instruct the jury as to the purpose of the State’s cross-examination of defendant’s character witness regarding defendant’s prior criminal record.
  • State v. Cotten 438 So. 2d 1156 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Brown 434 So. 2d 399 La. 1983
  • State v. Smith 432 So. 2d 206 La. 1983
    This matter of cross examining character witnesses about a defendant’s
  • State v. Smith 430 So. 2d 31 La. 1983
  • State v. Clayton 427 So. 2d 827 La. 1983
    art. 841; cf. Tyler v. Phelps, 643 F.2d 1095 (5th Cir.1981).
  • State v. Sims 426 So. 2d 148 La. 1983
  • State v. Lane 414 So. 2d 1223 La. 1982
  • State v. Herrod 412 So. 2d 564 La. 1982
  • State v. Williams 410 So. 2d 217 La. 1982
    The trial judge ruled, however, that the state could use those convictions in cross-examining defendant's character witnesses
  • State v. Penns 407 So. 2d 678 La. 1981