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. Williamson, 389 So. 2d 1328.

117 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Michael Steven White La. 2026
    art 920(2) as a patent error and subject to the harmless error analysis, despite the lack of a contemporaneous objection by defendant.2 (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Donovan Eugene Phillips La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2026
  • State of Louisiana v. Dionte Bracken La. 2025
    Contrary to the court of appeal’s decision in the instant case,1 the other state appellate courts have found that, an error in an Allen charge does not qualify as an exception to the contemporaneous objection rule with respect to a jury charge.
  • State of Louisiana v. Tyrek Randall La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2025
    In its discussion, the fifth circuit stated: found that an erroneous jury instruction was reviewable, stating: .
  • State of Louisiana v. Jaylon K. Brown La. 2024
  • State Of Louisiana v. Dionte Bracken La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
  • State of Louisiana v. Scot Martin Kidd La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
    Defendant argues there is an exception to the rule of Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure art. 801(C), in which a trial court incorrectly instructed a jury regarding the elements of first and second degree murder.
  • State Of Louisiana v. Cleao Dunn, Jr. La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
  • State Of Louisiana v. Demario G. Warren La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
    He concedes that no contemporaneous objection was lodged to the verdicts, but argues this court can notice " the error" as patent error3 or " plain error" ( La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Arijoray Lavon Copeland La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
    “Such an error is of such importance and significance as to violate fundamental requirements of due process.” (La.
  • State v. Flores 268 So. 3d 1199 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
    State v. Williamson , (La.
  • State v. Mathis 263 So. 3d 613 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
    State v. Williamson , (La.
  • State v. Devillier 258 So. 3d 230 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    In State v. Williamson , (La.
  • State v. Howard 258 So. 3d 66 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    1976) ; State v. Williamson , (La.
  • State v. Sandifer 249 So. 3d 142 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    The Defendants contend, citing State v. Williamson , (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. William Felix Vail La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
    The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed a defendant’s despite the lack of objection to the jury charges, because the jury was improperly charged with the wrong definition of the charged crime.
  • State v. Vail 236 So. 3d 644 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed a defendant's conviction in State v. Williamson , despite the lack of objection to the jury charges, because the jury was improperly charged with the wrong definition of the charged crime.
  • State ex rel. Collier v. State 222 So. 3d 699 La. 2017
  • State v. Lee 208 So. 3d 492 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
  • State v. Matthews 200 So. 3d 895 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    The defendant cites two cases, where the Louisiana Supreme Court has considered a jury charge issue despite the absence of a contemporaneous objection.
  • State of Louisiana v. Jaime Brooks Day La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    12/11/09), in support of her argument.
  • State v. Day 158 So. 3d 120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    2 Cir. 2/25/09), , writ denied, 09-696 (La.12/11/09), ; in support of her argument.
  • State v. Patin 150 So. 3d 435 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2014
    the trial judge incorrectly instructed the jury on the elements of the crime charged, effectively reducing the state’s evidentiary burden, without defense objection.
  • State v. Wallace 143 So. 3d 1275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    the Holmes court recognized that the general rule requiring a contemporaneous objection “has an exception where the error is the very definition of the crime of which the defendant was in fact convicted, and where the record bears full and sufficient proof of the error which no posterior hearing could augme
  • State v. Vallo 131 So. 3d 835 La. 2014
    The court in Thomas relied to a great extent on this Court’s
  • State of Louisiana v. Jody D. Hamilton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    for the proposition that an error that involves the very definition of the crime of which a defendant is convicted violates the fundamental requirements of due process.
  • State v. Hamilton 127 So. 3d 76 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    for the proposition that an error that involves the very definition of the crime of which a defendant is convicted violates the fundamental requirements of due process.
  • State of Louisiana v. Christopher Marshall, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
  • State v. Marshall 157 So. 3d 666 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State of Louisiana v. Demarcus W. Law La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
  • State v. Law 110 So. 3d 1271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State of Louisiana v. Christopher K. Mayeux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    State v. Lowery, 33,905 (La.App.2d Cir.2/28/01), writ denied, 2001-1041 (La.2/22/02)
  • State v. Mayeux 128 So. 3d 998 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    State v. Lowery, 33,905 (La.App.2d Cir.2/28/01), , writ denied, 2001-1041 (La.2/22/02), .
  • State v. Smith 71 So. 3d 485 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    State v. Lowery, 33,905 (La.App.2d Cir.2/28/01),4 , writ denied, 2001-1041 (La.2/22/02), .
  • State v. Massey 71 So. 3d 367 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    The court acknowledged that there are exceptions to the rule
  • State v. Robinson 63 So. 3d 1113 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    Although the defense concedes that defendant’s trial counsel failed to object to the state’s questioning
  • State of Louisiana v. Vincent Marinello La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • State v. Marinello 49 So. 3d 488 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • State v. MERANTA 30 So. 3d 1183 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • State v. Gibson 38 So. 3d 373 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    State v. Ruffins, 41,033 (La.App.2d Cir. 9/20/06), , ( ).
  • State v. Harris 22 So. 3d 232 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    where a defendant’s conviction for second degree murder was reversed due to 112erroneous jury instructions on the elements of first and second degree murder and on responsive verdicts.
  • State v. Langston 3 So. 3d 707 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
  • State of Louisiana v. Gregory L. Clavelle, Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
  • State v. CLAVELLE 998 So. 2d 335 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    5 Cir. 3/25/97) , , writ denied, 97-1069 (La.10/13/97)
  • State v. Brown 966 So. 2d 1138 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    Although Louisiana courts have sometimes waived the contemporaneous objection rule, (an error involving "the very definition of the crime of which defendant was in fact convicted .
  • State of Louisiana v. Robert Wayne Brown La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    Although Louisiana courts have sometimes waived the contemporaneous objection rule, (an error involving “the very definition of the crime of which defendant was in fact convicted .
  • State v. Gage 965 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    State v. Ruffins, 41,033 (La.App.2d Cir.9/20/06), , State v. Jarvis, 01-1277 (La.App.
  • State v. Falcon 956 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
    the Court addressed the issue of erroneous jury instructions even though the Defendant failed to object timely, because the error related to the very definition of the crime of which defendant was convicted, and was of such importance and significance as to violate fundamental requirements of due proc
  • State v. Price 952 So. 2d 112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    the supreme court reviewed an erroneous jury instruction even though the defendant failed to object at trial.
  • State v. Ruffins 940 So. 2d 45 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    State v. Jarvis, supra , (La.