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. Toomer, 395 So. 2d 1320.

123 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Jordan Mitchell Zaykis Bolden Dylan Johnson La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2026
    art. 726(A), emphasizing that the purpose of the article is to “eliminate unwarranted prejudice that could arise from surprise testimony.” Id., (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Michael Duck La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2022
  • State Of Louisiana v. David Brown La. 2022
  • State v. Youngblood 274 So. 3d 716 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
    1980) ; State v. Toomer , , 1335 (1981), overruled on other grounds, State v. Guillory , 10-1231 (La.
  • State of Louisiana Versus Ron C. Youngblood La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2019
    1980); (1981), overruled on other grounds, State v. Guillory, 10-1231 (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Timothy H. Queen -Aka- Timothy Hugh Queen La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
    art. 726: The purpose of art. 726 and the other discovery rules in the Code of Criminal Procedure is to “eliminate unwarranted prejudice which could arise from surprise testimony.”
  • State v. Queen 237 So. 3d 547 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
  • State v. Woodberry 171 So. 3d 1082 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    716-729; -890 (La.1980), cert.
  • State v. Hartford 162 So. 3d 1202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State v. Marzett 123 So. 3d 831 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Although this court has stated on many occasions the grant or denial of a new trial under subparagraph (5) is un-reviewable, State v. D’Ingianni, 217 La.
  • State v. Bazile 144 So. 3d 719 La. 2013
    Const, art. I, § 17(a); 12 overruled on other grounds by State v. Guillory, 2010-1231, p. 3 (La.10/8/10); (“There is clearly no state constitutional right not to be tried by a jury, except in the very unusual case where a fair jury trial is impossible or unlikely.”); (La.19
  • State v. Baumberger 104 So. 3d 417 La. 2012
    716-729, which require the state to adhere to its constitutional duty to disclose exculpatory evidence, but which are primarily |/‘intended to eliminate unwarranted prejudice which could arise from surprise testimony.”
  • State v. Lewis 69 So. 3d 604 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    State v. Williams, 25,835 (La.App.2d Cir.2/23/94), .
  • State v. Guillory 45 So. 3d 612 La. 2010
    Although this court has stated on many occasions the grant or denial of a new trial under subparagraph (5) is unre-viewable, State v. D’Ingianni, 217 La.
  • State v. Woodard 9 So. 3d 112 La. 2009
    art. 851(5) is ordinarily not subject to review, State v. Miller, 05-1111, p. 2 (La.3/10/06), ; and, as the trial court in the j^resent case acknowledged, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally reserved for post-conviction proceedings.
  • State of Louisiana v. Francis Brown La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • State v. Brown 6 So. 3d 966 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • State v. Malone 998 So. 2d 322 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
  • State v. Colbert 990 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    State v. Haywood, 2004-2097 (La.App.
  • State v. Wright 978 So. 2d 1062 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    2d Cir.10/27/99), , writ denied, 99-3384 (La.5/12/00)
  • State v. MacOn 957 So. 2d 1280 La. 2007
    [4] (1981); State v. D'Ingianni, 217 La.
  • State v. Elie 936 So. 2d 791 La. 2006
  • State v. Knott 928 So. 2d 534 La. 2006
    art. 851(5) is subject to review by an appellate court under an abuse-of-discretion standard, as a majority on the court of appeal *536 panel believed in the present case, Knott , 04-1594 at 5, 908 So.2d at 31 , (La.
  • State v. Hall 929 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    State v. Williams, 25,835 (La.App.2d Cir.2/23/94), .
  • State v. Jackson 926 So. 2d 815 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    State v. Williams, 25,835 (La.App.
  • State v. Miller 923 So. 2d 625 La. 2006
    (grant or denial of a new trial under art. 851(5) "presents nothing for this Court's appellate review"); (same); State v. D'Ingianni, 217 La.
  • State v. Perry 920 So. 2d 934 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    State v. Williams, 25,835 (La.App.2d Cir.02/23/94), ; (La.App.
  • State v. Williams 916 So. 2d 1285 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    State v. Williams, 25,835 (La.App.
  • State v. Haywood 907 So. 2d 168 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
    (grant or denial of a new trial under Article 851(5) "presents nothing for this Court's appellate review"); (same), cert.
  • State v. Perrin 897 So. 2d 749 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    art. 858; State v. Snyder, XXXX-XXXX (La.4/14/99), -860 ; (grant or denial of a new trial under Article 851(5) "presents nothing for this Court's appellate review"); cert.
  • State v. James 873 So. 2d 858 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
  • State v. Roman 802 So. 2d 1281 La. 2001
    (the grant or denial of a new trial under art. 851(5) "presents nothing for this Court's appellate review".).
  • State v. Dennis 777 So. 2d 569 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    716-729; State v. Rainey, 722 So.2d at 1101 .
  • State v. Young 757 So. 2d 797 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
  • State v. Blanchard 749 So. 2d 19 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
  • State v. Sims 745 So. 2d 151 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • State v. McKnight 739 So. 2d 343 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
  • State v. Snyder 750 So. 2d 832 La. 1999
    (grant or denial of a new trial under Article 851(5) "presents nothing for this Court's appellate review"); (same), cert.
  • State v. Rainey 722 So. 2d 1097 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
  • State v. Owens 719 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
  • State v. Jordan 719 So. 2d 556 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
  • State v. Burmaster 710 So. 2d 274 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
  • State v. Bradford 700 So. 2d 1046 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
  • State v. Craig 699 So. 2d 865 La. 1997
  • State v. Gipson 677 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
  • State v. Allen 663 So. 2d 686 La. 1995
  • State v. Guidry 647 So. 2d 511 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
  • State v. Jamison 640 So. 2d 438 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
  • State v. Williams 632 So. 2d 893 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • State v. Harris 627 So. 2d 788 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993