Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Rodrigue, 409 So. 2d 556.

54 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Scott Allen Cooper La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana v. Brian Segura La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
her similarly situated cases in which venue was not changed.”); (although 24 of 39 prospective jurors examined had heard about the crime, only four were excused on grounds of bias, a percentage too low to support a finding of collective community prejudice sufficient to warrant a change of venue); (although 26 of 30 prospective jurors examined in mock voir dire had heard about the case, only 9 had fixed opinions of defendant’s guilt; change of venue not warranted).
State v. Segura 127 So. 3d 1034 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
1985) (although 24 of 39 prospective jurors examined had heard about the crime, only four were excused on grounds of bias, a percentage too low to support a finding of collective community prejudice sufficient to warrant a change of venue); (although 26 of 30 prospective jurors examined in mock voir dire had heard about the case, only 9 had fixed opinions of defendant’s guilt; change of venue not warranted).
State v. Magee 103 So. 3d 285 La. 2012
ound “these numbers consistent with other similarly situated cases in which venue was not changed.”); (although 24 of 39 prospective jurors examined had heard about the crime, only four were excused on grounds of bias, a percentage too low to support a finding of collective community prejudice sufficient to warrant change of venue); (although 26 of 30 prospective jurors examined in mock voir dire had heard about the case, only 9 had fixed opinions of defendant’s guilt; change of venue not warran
State of Louisiana v. Aaron W. Ardoin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
3 the supreme court explained: The general rule is that, on trial of a motion to suppress, the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove the grounds of his motion.
State v. Ardoin 58 So. 3d 1025 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
the supreme court explained: The general rule is that, on trial of a motion to suppress, the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove the grounds of his motion.
State v. Lee 976 So. 2d 109 La. 2008
the last two groups questioned indicated that their knowledge would not affect their decision whereas 47% conceded prior knowledge would); State v. David, 425 So.2d at 1247 (out of 112 jurors, 27 (24%) had read or heard about the case, but only six of those 27 had an opinion, and all four jurors [3%] who said that they could not put their opinion aside were excused for cause); (La.
State v. Manning 885 So. 2d 1044 La. 2004
A review of the responses of the potential jurors on voir dire does not reveal the existence of collective community prejudice which could have denied defendant a fair trial before impartial jurors."); (In a mock voir dire set up in order to determine the impact of media coverage, 26 of 30 prospective jurors (86%) had read about the case; the court ultimately determined a jury could be chosen in that parish).
State v. Clark 851 So. 2d 1055 La. 2003
lled details of crime and only six out of 24 jurors in the last two groups questioned indicated that their knowledge would not affect their decision); David, 425 So.2d at 1247 (out of 112 jurors, 27 had read or heard about the case, but only six of those 27 had an opinion, and all four of those jurors who said that they could not put their opinion aside were excused for cause); (in a mock voir dire set up in order to determine the impact of media coverage by the court, 26 of 30 prospective juror
State v. Frank 803 So. 2d 1 La. 2001
ils of crime and only six out of 24 jurors in the last two groups questioned indicated that their knowledge would not affect their decision); State v. David, 425 So.2d at 1247 (out of 112 jurors, 27 had read or heard about the case, but only six of those 27 had an opinion, and all four of those jurors who said that they could not put their opinion aside were excused for cause); (La.
State v. Hoffman 768 So. 2d 542 La. 2000
A review of the responses by potential jurors on voir dire does not reveal the existence of collective community prejudice which could have denied defendant a fair trial before impartial jurors."); (in a mock voir dire set up in order to determine the impact of media coverage by the court, twenty-six of thirty prospective jurors had read about the case, but only nine had fixed an opinion which satisfied the court that a jury could be chosen in that parish); State v. David, 425 So.2d at 1247 (out
State v. Hundley 760 So. 2d 417 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
State v. Wessinger 736 So. 2d 162 La. 1999
[5] See, (4 of 39 potential jurors struck for cause, although 24 of 39 had heard of crime); State v. Connolly, 96-1680 (La.7/1/97), (although approximately 86% of potential jurors had heard of case, most had only a vague recollection of facts and could not remember specific details of the crime); (court found change of venue unnecessary where, in mock voir dire, 26 of 30 prospective jurors had heard of case, but only 9 had a set opinion about the case).
State v. Williams 708 So. 2d 703 La. 1998
A review of the responses of the potential jurors on voir dire *729 does not reveal the existence of collective community prejudice which could have denied defendant a fair trial before impartial jurors."); (In a mock voir dire set up in order to determine the impact of media coverage by the Court, 26 of 30 prospective jurors had read or heard about the case, but only 9 had formed an opinion as to the defendant's guilt.); (Out of 112 jurors, 27 had read or hea
State v. Edmondson 699 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
1982); , 682 n. 2 (La.1980); State v. Bell, 315 So.2d *888 307, 311-312 (La.1975).
State v. Ledet 694 So. 2d 336 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
State v. Gibson 644 So. 2d 1093 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
State v. Green 634 So. 2d 503 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Overruled State v. Johnson 595 So. 2d 789 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
LaFave and Israel, Criminal Procedure, Hornbook Ed., pp. 304-306; -1 (La.1982).
State v. Long 590 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
art. 622; State v. Goodson, supra ; "
State v. Moseley 587 So. 2d 46 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
State v. White 544 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Perkins 540 So. 2d 556 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
1602 , 16 *559 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)
State v. Massey 535 So. 2d 1135 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
State v. Walker 534 So. 2d 81 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
State v. Bennett 527 So. 2d 1126 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Watkins 526 So. 2d 357 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
State v. Counterman 515 So. 2d 533 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Broussard 517 So. 2d 1000 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
State v. Prestridge 507 So. 2d 1271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Brown 504 So. 2d 1025 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Myers 495 So. 2d 411 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
State v. Evans 485 So. 2d 161 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
State v. Feet 481 So. 2d 667 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Brown 481 So. 2d 679 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Cardenas 464 So. 2d 808 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
his conclusions on credibility are entitled to the respect due those made by one who saw the witnesses and heard them testify.” (La.App.
State v. Broaden 461 So. 2d 400 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Mitchell, supra at 267
State v. Jackson 452 So. 2d 1250 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Jones 451 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Oliver 448 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
State v. Henry 446 So. 2d 1308 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Keleman 444 So. 2d 1328 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Sterling 444 So. 2d 273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Distinguished State v. Clark 442 So. 2d 1129 La. 1983
State v. Rodrigue 441 So. 2d 1274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Rodrigue 437 So. 2d 830 La. 1983
State v. Mitchell 437 So. 2d 264 La. 1983
State v. Clark 434 So. 2d 404 La. 1983
State v. Kahey 436 So. 2d 475 La. 1983
art. 622; State v. Morris; supra ; State v. Goodson, supra
State v. Morris 429 So. 2d 111 La. 1983
art. 622; State v. Goodson, supra