Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Goodson, 412 So. 2d 1077.

35 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Scott Allen Cooper La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
State v. Rodrigue, supra.
State v. Hankton 140 So. 3d 398 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
the Supreme Court vacated a trial court’s denial of a motion to change venue and “directed [the trial court] to defer ruling on the motion until completion of voir dire.” The Court noted that “[a]s there has not yet been a voir dire examination, it is impossible to decide at this point whether actual
State of Louisiana v. Brian Segura La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
In support of this assertion, : A prospective juror who has been exposed to and remembers reports of highly significant information, such as the existence or contents of a confession, or other incriminating matters that may be inadmissible in evidence, or substantial amounts of inflammatory material, shall b
State v. Segura 127 So. 3d 1034 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
In support of this assertion, : A prospective juror who has been exposed to and remembers reports of highly significant information, such as the existence or contents of a confession, or other incriminating matters that may be inadmissible in evidence, or substantial amounts of inflammatory material, shall be subject to challenge for
State of Louisiana v. Willard Brandenburg La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
3 Cir. 3/22/00), while discussing challenges for cause when a juror is exposed to pretrial publicity, as follows: Both the degree of exposure and the prospective juror’s testimony as to state of mind are relevant to the determination of acceptability.
State v. Brandenburg 949 So. 2d 625 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
App. 3 Cir. 3/22/00), , while discussing challenges for cause when a juror is exposed to pretrial publicity, as follows: Both the degree of exposure and the prospective juror's testimony as to state of mind are relevant to the determination of acceptability.
State v. Manning 885 So. 2d 1044 La. 2004
State v. McCullough 774 So. 2d 1105 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
-1081 (La.1982), appeal after remand, (La.App.
State v. Hundley 760 So. 2d 417 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
Additionally, Defendant alleges that the trial court overruled his challenges of prospective jurors, Regan and Leckelt, (La.
State v. Edmondson 699 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
-1134 (La.1983); -118 (La.1983); (La.
State v. Louviere 697 So. 2d 590 La. 1997
State v. Hart 691 So. 2d 651 La. 1997
State v. Smith 687 So. 2d 529 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
The defendant contends that Mr. Bertrand should have been excluded for cause, (La.
State v. Timon 683 So. 2d 315 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
State v. Huls 676 So. 2d 160 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
State v. Bolden 680 So. 2d 6 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
appeal after remand, (La.App.
State v. Long 590 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
1639, 1642 , 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961)
State v. Moseley 587 So. 2d 46 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
1998 , 90 L.Ed.2d 678 (1986)
State v. Lee 559 So. 2d 1310 La. 1990
1507 , 16 L.Ed.2d 600 (1966)
State v. Lambert 506 So. 2d 1384 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Balfa 506 So. 2d 1369 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
State v. Brown 496 So. 2d 261 La. 1986
State v. Balfa 485 So. 2d 264 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
1639 , 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961).”
State v. Williams 458 So. 2d 1315 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Monk 454 So. 2d 421 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
State v. Bennett 454 So. 2d 1165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Henry 446 So. 2d 1308 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Rodrigue, supra.
State v. Clark 442 So. 2d 1129 La. 1983
State v. Goodson 437 So. 2d 1174 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
State v. Clark 434 So. 2d 404 La. 1983
State v. Kahey 436 So. 2d 475 La. 1983
1639, 1642 , 61 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961)
State v. Kohler 434 So. 2d 1110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
decision involving the so-called "Highland Rapist" in the Shreveport-Bossier City area.
State v. Harper 430 So. 2d 627 La. 1983
State v. Morris 429 So. 2d 111 La. 1983
1639, 1642 , 61 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961)
State v. David 425 So. 2d 1241 La. 1983