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. MacK, 403 So. 2d 8.

38 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Dionte Bracken La. 2025
  • State Of Louisiana v. David Brown La. 2022
    1976) (accused did not waive his right to complain, in regard to trial judge’s refusal to give accused’s requested special charge, by failing to object to such refusal before jury retired to deliberate); See also, n.1 (La.
  • State v. Corley 703 So. 2d 653 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    The case relied on by the defendant, held that the reading of the exact language of Article 804 was mandatory.
  • State v. Ford 694 So. 2d 917 La. 1997
    -29 (La.1985); -10 (La.1981); State v. Smith, 91-0749 (La.
  • State v. Callahan 655 So. 2d 608 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    Defendant contends that his objection, lodged after the charges were read and the jury retired, to support his contention.
  • Distinguished State v. Walker 637 So. 2d 583 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
    In our view, holding that a complaint directed at the general charge is timely immediately following the jury's retirement, if no earlier opportunity to object has been afforded.
  • State v. Shelton 621 So. 2d 769 La. 1993
  • State v. Sam 623 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
    His trial occurred in September, 1984, nearly one year after finality of the State Supreme Court’s
  • State Ex Rel. Taylor v. Whitley 606 So. 2d 1292 La. 1992
    We reversed McDaniel's conviction and sentence based upon both the reasonable doubt language, and upon a portion of the charge that prohibited the jury from going beyond the evidence to seek doubts upon which to acquit the defendant, a
  • State v. Johnson 598 So. 2d 1288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
  • State v. Wright 598 So. 2d 493 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
  • State v. Sullivan 596 So. 2d 177 La. 1992
    Although this court at one time consistently reversed convictions based on the type of incorrect reasonable doubt instruction given to the jury in this case, State v. Moffett, 127 La.
  • State v. Desmond 593 So. 2d 965 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
  • State v. Isgitt 590 So. 2d 763 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
  • State v. Banta 589 So. 2d 1088 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    328, 329-330 , 112 L.Ed.2d 339 (1990), the jury charge was constitutionally defective.
  • State v. Cage 583 So. 2d 1125 La. 1991
    [s]uch an instruction constitutes reversible error".); (an instruction on reasonable doubt directing the jury that reasonable doubt "must be such a doubt that would give rise to a great uncertainty" and that "it must be one that would make you feel *1138 morally uncertain as to the defendant's guilt" constituted reversible error); ("we decline to sanction jury instructions which substitute misleading and unclear statement for the direct statutory language of C.Cr.P.
  • State v. Walker 577 So. 2d 770 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
  • State v. Lard 568 So. 2d 629 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
    157 , 66 L.Ed.2d 72 (1980), rev'd on other grounds
  • State v. Holland 544 So. 2d 461 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Foster 541 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • State v. Butters 527 So. 2d 1023 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Washington 522 So. 2d 628 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    The court may, but is not required to define “the presumption of innocence” or “reasonable doubt” or give any other or further charge upon the same than that contained in this article.” Formerly, (La.
  • State v. Washington 522 So. 2d 628 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
    Formerly, the Supreme Court required that the exact words of LSA-C.Cr.P.
  • State v. Foster 510 So. 2d 717 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Wade 508 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Williams 492 So. 2d 1268 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    *1271 wherein the court mandated a reading of La.C.Cr.P.
  • State v. Smith 491 So. 2d 641 La. 1986
    art. 770; (3) whether, taken as a whole, the final charge to the jury erroneously instructed the jury that it could not go beyond the evidence to find a reasonable doubt
  • State v. Hardeman 467 So. 2d 1163 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • State v. Simms 465 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
  • State v. Vessell 450 So. 2d 938 La. 1984
  • State v. Adams 446 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Clark 446 So. 2d 293 La. 1984
  • State v. Rault 445 So. 2d 1203 La. 1984
    Jury Instructions, pp. 1-2) stated that Article 804 must be read to the jury.
  • State v. Simmons 443 So. 2d 512 La. 1983
    Specifically, defendant argues, that the trial court failed to instruct the jury that it should consider the lack of evidence as well as the sufficiency of the evidence in giving the defendant the benefit of every reasonable doubt.
  • State v. Legro 410 So. 2d 1063 La. 1982
  • State v. McDaniel 410 So. 2d 754 La. 1982
    *757 : "A correct understanding of reasonable doubt is essential in every criminal jury trial.
  • State v. McDermitt 406 So. 2d 195 La. 1981
  • State v. Lindsey 404 So. 2d 466 La. 1981
    on original hearing (rehearing application pending on the instant issue).