Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Johnson, 438 So. 2d 1091.

156 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Caiden J Fruge La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
App. 4 Cir. 12/30/20), ( (La.
State of Louisiana v. Markus O. Andrews La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana v. Kerri Seeney Monic La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana v. Michael T. Robinson Denzel West Kirk Powell La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana v. Nancy Rogers A/K/A Nancy Lynn Rogers La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
State Of Louisiana v. David Brown La. 2022
State of Louisiana v. Kentrell Hickerson La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
State of Louisiana v. Brian L. Pope La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
State v. Latique 265 So. 3d 93 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
In support of his argument, Defendant, relying on State v. Johnson , contends that, pursuant to former La.Code Crim.P.
State of Louisiana v. Elijah James Latique La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
In support of his argument, Defendant, contends that, pursuant to former La.Code Crim.P.
State v. Sandifer 249 So. 3d 142 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Johnson , , 1099 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Nathaniel Climes Thibeaux AKA Nathaniel Thibeaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
State v. Thibeaux 229 So. 3d 967 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Johnson 203 So. 3d 1121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State of Louisiana v. Marcus Donte Reed 200 So. 3d 291 La. 2016
State of Louisiana v. Odeal Pippins Lirette La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
14 (La.1983), the supreme court held that argument of counsel that is missing from the transcript “is immaterial to an adequate review of the trial court’s ruling.” In State v. Pinion, 06-2346, pp. 7-8 (La.
State v. Lirette 195 So. 3d 644 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
(La.1983), the supreme court held that argument of counsel that is missing from the transcript “is immaterial to an adequate review of the trial court’s ruling.” In State v. Pinion, 06-2346, pp. 7-8 (La.10/26/07), -35 (citation omitted), the supreme court held: *654 The Court has instead cond
State v. Berniard 163 So. 3d 71 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Coleman 133 So. 3d 9 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Diggins 126 So. 3d 770 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. Jody D. Hamilton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State of Louisiana v. Donald Runnels La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
5/6/05), stating that 14 “[e]ssential to the concept of a fair trial is the requirement of complete neutrality on the part of the presiding judge.’
State v. Runnels 101 So. 3d 1046 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
5 Cir. 12/28/04), , writ denied, 05-228 (La.5/6/05), , stating that I is“[e]ssential to the concept of a fair trial is the requirement of complete neutrality on the part of the presiding judge.”
State of Louisiana v. Terrance L. Sinegal La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Sinegal 97 So. 3d 649 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State of Louisiana v. L. W. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State of Louisiana v. Michael D. Patterson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Patterson 83 So. 3d 1209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State of Louisiana v. Toby James Fruge La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. Fruge 34 So. 3d 422 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Scott 26 So. 3d 283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State of Louisiana v. Henry Bryan Lowe La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. Lowe 999 So. 2d 194 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. Camper 996 So. 2d 571 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
State v. Pinion 968 So. 2d 131 La. 2007
State v. Valentine 929 So. 2d 779 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
802; 3 ; State v. Goodley, 01-0077 (La.6/21/02), .
State v. Dixon 911 So. 2d 372 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
State v. Mills 900 So. 2d 953 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Perrin 897 So. 2d 749 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Pittman 892 So. 2d 641 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
State v. Booker 839 So. 2d 455 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
State v. Grainer 834 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
State v. Williams 828 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
State v. Frank, 99-0553 (La.1/17/01), ; Mamon, supra .
State v. Lipscomb 823 So. 2d 425 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
State v. Goodley 820 So. 2d 478 La. 2002
1979); (defendant not entitled to negligent homicide instruction because that "defense [not] fairly supported by the evidence" and "charge must be supported by the evidence"); State v. Henry, *483 ("`[D]ue process requires that a lesser included offense instruction be given only w
State v. Offray 797 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Neal 796 So. 2d 649 La. 2001
1978); (defendant not entitled to negligent homicide instruction because that "defense [not] fairly supported by the evidence" and "charge must be supported by the evidence"); (same).
State v. Johnson 778 So. 2d 706 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001