Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Lindsey, 404 So. 2d 466.

141 citing documents.

State Of Louisiana v. Louis Howard La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
State Of Louisiana v. Andre V. Griffin La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
State Of Louisiana v. William Wayne Lee, Jr. La. 2023
1993) (referring to “the governor’s exclusive authority over matters of clemency pursuant to Article IV, § 5(E) of the Constitution.”); (La.
State of Louisiana v. Robert E. Smith Jr. La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2019
State of Louisiana v. Kyvonte Latrell Eaglin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
The trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of photographs “will not be disturbed on appeal unless the prejudicial effect of the photographs, in fact, clearly outweighs the probative value.”
State v. Eaglin 239 So. 3d 1001 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Lindsey , , 475 (La.1981).
State v. Williams 240 So. 3d 355 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
App. 5 Cir. 3/9/10), , 609 ; , 475 (La.1981).
State v. Leger 236 So. 3d 577 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Joshua X. Griffin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
State v. Griffin 217 So. 3d 484 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Marcus Donte Reed 200 So. 3d 291 La. 2016
State of Louisiana v. Gerald W. Dahlem 197 So. 3d 676 La. 2016
art. 841(A) (“An irregularity or error cannot be availed of after verdict unless it was objected to at the time of the occurrence.”); (“[A]n irregularity or error cannot be availed of after verdict unless it was objected to at the time of occurrence.”); ("In the absence of a contemporaneous objection, an alleged error or irregularity in the proceedings cannot be availed of after the verdict is rendered.”); (“By failing to make a timely objection, a defendant waives his right to subsequently atta
State of Louisiana v. Robert Glen Coleman 188 So. 3d 174 La. 2016
State of Louisiana v. Joseph Eric Vercher La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
State v. Vercher 162 So. 3d 740 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Parker 124 So. 3d 516 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
Anderson, supra; Brooks, supra
State of Louisiana v. Easton Joseph Francisco La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Brooks, 93–3331, pp. 11–17(La.1/17/95), –75
State v. Francisco 101 So. 3d 617 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Brooks, 93-3331, pp. 11-17 (La.1/17/95), -75
State of Louisiana v. Jonathan Jude Gilbert La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. Gilbert 41 So. 3d 566 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State of Louisiana v. Jimmy Morchan Turner La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. Duhon 997 So. 2d 904 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. Johnson 993 So. 2d 326 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
State v. Anderson 996 So. 2d 973 La. 2008
State v. Brooks, 93-3331, pp. 11-17(La.1/17/95), -75
State v. Beaner 974 So. 2d 667 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
State v. James 897 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
State v. Hendricks 882 So. 2d 1212 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
State v. Ball 824 So. 2d 1089 La. 2002
See e.g., State v. Jones, 94-0459 (La.7/5/94), ; (La.
State v. Brown 780 So. 2d 536 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Casey 775 So. 2d 1022 La. 2000
State v. Hampton 750 So. 2d 867 La. 1999
State v. Snyder 750 So. 2d 832 La. 1999
State v. Cooks 720 So. 2d 637 La. 1998
State v. Robertson 712 So. 2d 8 La. 1998
State v. Loyd 689 So. 2d 1321 La. 1997
State v. Lavalais 685 So. 2d 1048 La. 1996
State v. Timon 683 So. 2d 315 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
State v. Sepulvado 672 So. 2d 158 La. 1996
State v. Taylor 669 So. 2d 364 La. 1996
State v. Green 655 So. 2d 272 La. 1995
Brooks, supra, at P. 12, 648 So.2d at 373, ( citations omitted ).
State v. Green 655 So. 2d 252 La. 1995
Brooks, supra, at P. 12, 648 So.2d at 373, (citations omitted).
State v. Brooks 648 So. 2d 366 La. 1995
State v. Martin 645 So. 2d 190 La. 1994
State v. Eaton, supra, at 1201 ; State v. Watson, supra, at 1326
State v. Dugar 643 So. 2d 870 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
State v. Jones 639 So. 2d 1144 La. 1994
State v. Davis 637 So. 2d 1012 La. 1994
1803 , 76 L.Ed.2d 367 (1983); cert.
State v. Corley 617 So. 2d 1292 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
State v. Harris 618 So. 2d 945 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
The photograph, of course, “must be relevant for some purpose and a balance must be struck between the probativity of the photograph and its tendency ‘to overwhelm reason and to associate the accused with the atrocity without sufficient evidence.’ ” (quoting 4 Wigmore, Evidence § 1157 (Chadbourn rev. 1972)).
State v. Perow 616 So. 2d 1336 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
State v. Williams 610 So. 2d 991 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
The photograph, of course, "must be relevant for some purpose and a balance must be struck between the probativity of the photograph and its tendency `to overwhelm reason and to associate the accused with the atrocity without sufficient evidence.'" (La.