Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Prestridge, 399 So. 2d 564.

273 citing documents.

State v. Everett 96 So. 3d 605 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
[[Image here]] the Court found that the prosecutor’s comment referring to matters allegedly within his personal knowledge but not in evidence improper.
State v. Paul 90 So. 3d 1191 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Seals 83 So. 3d 285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
5 Cir. 1/25/94), , writ denied, 94-417 (La.5/20/94)
State of Louisiana v. v. L. G. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Patton 68 So. 3d 1209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State of Louisiana v. Marcus W. Anderson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
The proper standard is “whether the proffered evidence is relevant to any material issue in dispute and, if so, whether its probative value exceeds its probable prejudicial effect.” [State v. Prestridge,] (La.
State v. Anderson 66 So. 3d 568 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
The proper standard is “whether the proffered evidence is relevant to any material issue in dispute and, if so, whether its probative value exceeds its probable prejudicial effect.” [State v. Prestridge,] (citing [State v. Hawthorne ], ).
State of Louisiana v. Ricky Joseph Langley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Langley 61 So. 3d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Johnson 57 So. 3d 412 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. Jones 51 So. 3d 827 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
” Draughn, 950 So.2d at 614 .
State v. Preston 40 So. 3d 1052 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
the Court held that the arguably erroneous inclusion of lesser offense responsive verdicts in the charge to the jury could not be said to have prejudiced the defendant where the jury returned a verdict of guilty of the offense charged.
State of Louisiana v. M. L. Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. ML JR. 35 So. 3d 1183 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. JD 32 So. 3d 1072 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. J.D. 32 So. 3d 1072 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State of Louisiana v. J. D. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. Wilson 26 So. 3d 210 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
State v. Vincent 7 So. 3d 1243 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State of Louisiana v. D. T. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. D.T. 998 So. 2d 1258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
State v. DT 998 So. 2d 1258 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State of Louisiana v. H.J.L. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. H.J.L. 999 So. 2d 338 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
State v. HJL 999 So. 2d 338 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. Clifton 997 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
State v. Camper 996 So. 2d 571 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
Even if the prosecutor exceeded the bounds of argument, the trial judge has broad discretion in controlling the scope of closing argument, and an appellate court will not reverse a conviction unless "thoroughly convinced" that the argument influenced the jury and contributed to the verdict.
State v. Shaw 987 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
the victim, ten years old at the time of the alleged rape, testified that the defendant rubbed his penis around, up and down, and across her vagina for about five minutes.
State v. Borden 986 So. 2d 158 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
State of Louisiana v. Clinton B. Schneider, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. Schneider 981 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. Bowers 965 So. 2d 959 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
State v. Frank 957 So. 2d 724 La. 2007
See also State v. Juniors, 03-2425, p. 58 (La.6/29/05), (finding defendant failed to demonstrate that the denial of the expert assistance substantially prejudiced him at trial); (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).
State v. Kennedy 957 So. 2d 757 La. 2007
See, ("[I]n the prosecution of sex offenses the better rule is that the original complaint of a young child is admissible when the particular facts and circumstances of the case indicate that the complaint was the product of a shocking episode and not a fabrication."); (La
State v. Draughn 950 So. 2d 583 La. 2007
State of Louisiana v. Leroy Waguespack La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
State v. Waguespack 939 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
State v. Juniors 915 So. 2d 291 La. 2005
See, (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.).
State of Louisiana v. Robert S. Willis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
3593 (1984); State v. O’Blanc, State v. Terrebonne, 256 La.
State v. Willis 915 So. 2d 365 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
3593 , 82 L.Ed.2d 889 (1984); State v. Terrebonne, 256 La.
State v. Leonard 915 So. 2d 829 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
State v. Harris 892 So. 2d 1238 La. 2005
State of Louisiana v. Ricky J. Langley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
for the proposition that a defendant has a right to make contemporaneous objections during closing arguments.
State v. Langley 896 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
for the proposition that a defendant has a right to make contemporaneous objections during closing arguments.
State v. Uloho 875 So. 2d 918 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
With the exception of a few words, the requested special charge in the present case is identical to a jury charge challenged *926 by a
State v. Legrand 864 So. 2d 89 La. 2004
State v. Chatman 855 So. 2d 875 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
State v. Murphy, 34,624 (La.App.2d Cir.04/06/01), , writ denied, XXXX-XXXX (La.03/22/02), ; (La.App.
State v. Melancon 826 So. 2d 633 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
State v. Duncan 802 So. 2d 533 La. 2001
State v. Prestridge ( (La.
State v. Winding 787 So. 2d 385 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
the Louisiana Supreme Court rejected the argument that the mandatory life sentence for a conviction of aggravated rape constituted cruel, unusual, and excessive punishment as prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 20 of the Louisiana Constitution.