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. Monroe, 397 So. 2d 1258.

97 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Brady J. Harrington La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    appeal after remand, cert.
  • State v. Harrington 129 So. 3d 38 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    appeal after remand, cert.
  • State of Louisiana v. Rodney Ian Barnes La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    appeal after remand, cert.
  • State v. Barnes 93 So. 3d 666 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    appeal after remand, cert.
  • Criticized State v. Frank 957 So. 2d 724 La. 2007
    (this court criticized the "eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" argument as improper but found no reversible error since the argument when considered as a whole lost "much of its objectionable flavor.").
  • State v. Harris 892 So. 2d 1238 La. 2005
    [47] (rev'd)(life); (rev'd)(life); (aff'd)(commuted to life by Governor); (rev'd)(life); (rev'd)(life); (rev'd)(life); (rev'd)(life); (rev'd
  • Criticized State v. Manning 885 So. 2d 1044 La. 2004
  • State v. Clark 851 So. 2d 1055 La. 2003
    State v. Roy, 95-0638 (La.10/04/96), ; cert.
  • State v. LaCaze 824 So. 2d 1063 La. 2002
    art. 905.8; -1272 (La.1981).
  • State v. MM 802 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
  • State v. M.M. 802 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
  • State v. Frank 803 So. 2d 1 La. 2001
    [6] (stating that when an indigent defendant has been denied funds to obtain expert assistance, the issue on review becomes whether the denial of funds substantially prejudiced the defendant at trial); (finding that the indigent defendant was not substantially prejudiced by the denial of expert assistance at trial).
  • Criticized State v. Deruise 802 So. 2d 1224 La. 2001
    [9] we criticized the "eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" argument as improper, but found no reversible error since the argument when considered as a whole lost "much of its objectionable flavor."
  • State v. Wessinger 736 So. 2d 162 La. 1999
    *188 (finding that a "golden rule" argument, although improper, was not reversible error).
  • State v. Daniels 740 So. 2d 691 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • State v. Peterson 696 So. 2d 211 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    State v. Harris, supra ; State v. Davis, supra
  • State v. Allen 682 So. 2d 713 La. 1996
  • State v. Hamilton 681 So. 2d 1217 La. 1996
    (the defendant broke into the victim's home, stabbed the victim seven times as well as stabbed the victim's eleven-year-old daughter in the back); (multiple stab wounds during an armed robbery); (brutal slashing of the throat
  • State v. Miskell 676 So. 2d 1092 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
  • State v. Taylor 669 So. 2d 364 La. 1996
    See and compare, State v. Martin, supra ; State v. Bates, supra ; -71 (La.1981), cert.
  • State v. Davis 637 So. 2d 1012 La. 1994
    3571 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1412 (1983)
  • State v. Durosseau 626 So. 2d 51 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    writ denied, 463 U.S. 1229 , 103 S.Ct.
  • Distinguished State v. Alexander 612 So. 2d 262 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    In support of his argument, appeal after remand, , cert.
  • State Ex Rel. Taylor v. Whitley 606 So. 2d 1292 La. 1992
  • State v. Scriber 605 So. 2d 661 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    1978), appeal after remand, cert.
  • State v. Cook 598 So. 2d 423 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
  • State v. Otis 586 So. 2d 595 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
    appeal after remand, cert.
  • State v. English 582 So. 2d 1358 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
  • State v. Walker 577 So. 2d 770 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
    appeal after remand, cert.
  • State v. Smith 554 So. 2d 676 La. 1989
    261 , 78 L.Ed.2d 246 (1983); cert.
  • State v. Hall 549 So. 2d 373 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Deboue 552 So. 2d 355 La. 1989
    1330 , 79 L.Ed.2d 725 (1984)
  • State v. Thompson 544 So. 2d 421 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Creel 540 So. 2d 511 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • State v. Johnson 541 So. 2d 818 La. 1989
    (defendant shot and killed one person in a barroom and immediately fired upon others); (defendants shot victims to death on bed, one after the other); (defendant shot and killed first victim; reloaded; chased second victim down the street and shot her); (two consecutive stabbings); (La.
  • State v. Tassin 536 So. 2d 402 La. 1988
  • State v. Gremillion 529 So. 2d 497 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
  • State v. Gray 526 So. 2d 1268 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
  • State v. Thompson 516 So. 2d 349 La. 1987
  • State v. Jones 516 So. 2d 396 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
  • State v. Prestridge 507 So. 2d 1271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    202 , 78 L.Ed.2d 176 (1983); cert.
  • State v. Balfa 506 So. 2d 1369 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Mills 505 So. 2d 933 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Wille 496 So. 2d 375 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • State v. Caldwell 493 So. 2d 749 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • State v. Williams 490 So. 2d 255 La. 1986
    2049 , 85 L.Ed.2d 322 (1985)
  • State v. Scott 490 So. 2d 396 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
    A defendant must show that he is unable to obtain evidence crucial to the defense, and that an investigator could (or at least might) obtain the evidence sought.
  • State v. Moss 488 So. 2d 231 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • State v. Walker 489 So. 2d 353 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    Harris, supra; Davis, supra
  • State v. Medford 489 So. 2d 957 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986