Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Robinson, 404 So. 2d 907.

75 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Cassetti Dewayne Brown, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
art. 786, the scope of voir dire “shall be within the discretion of the court.” As the supreme court has previously held: The scope of examination lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, [-69 (La.1993)]; and reviewing courts owe a district judge’s determinations on the scope of voir dire great deference and may not disturb them in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion.
State v. Bell 222 So. 3d 79 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Shelwin Markise Jones La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Odom 104 So. 3d 61 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
State v. Camp 59 So. 3d 548 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
1474 , 137 L.Ed.2d 686 : (1997); -
State v. Stovall 977 So. 2d 1074 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
State v. Washington 952 So. 2d 798 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
State v. Lewis, 2004-0227 (La.App.
State v. Washington 952 So. 2d 798 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
State v. Lewis, XXXX-XXXX (La.App.
State v. Thomas 904 So. 2d 896 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Searls 895 So. 2d 40 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Lewis 885 So. 2d 641 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
State v. Ashford 878 So. 2d 798 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
State v. Gibbs 864 So. 2d 866 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State v. Harris 859 So. 2d 690 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
State v. Shepard 850 So. 2d 819 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State v. Haynes 847 So. 2d 653 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
State v. Smith 844 So. 2d 119 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
[7] -910 (La.1981); State v. Johnson 01-0842 (La.App.
State v. Alexander 829 So. 2d 526 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
State ex rel. Z.S. 811 So. 2d 1003 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
State v. Johnson 812 So. 2d 106 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
State v. Mills 790 So. 2d 102 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Winding 787 So. 2d 385 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Dean 789 So. 2d 602 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Carter 779 So. 2d 125 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
State v. Banks 779 So. 2d 80 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Grubbs, 644 So.2d at 1112
State v. Durant 776 So. 2d 1265 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Hubbard, supra, at XXXX-XXXX, (La.
State v. Short 725 So. 2d 23 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
State v. Jarvis 710 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
State v. Hubbard 708 So. 2d 1099 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
State v. Winfrey 703 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
State v. Morris 691 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
-912 (La.1981); (La.App.
State v. Roy 681 So. 2d 1230 La. 1996
The scope of examination lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, id.; and reviewing courts owe a district judge's determinations on the scope of voir dire great deference and may not disturb them in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion.
State v. Jackson 657 So. 2d 1391 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
State v. Hunter 654 So. 2d 781 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
State v. Grubbs 644 So. 2d 1105 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
State v. Carr 635 So. 2d 1334 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
State v. Allen 633 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
-912 (La.1981); (La.App.
State v. Johnson 619 So. 2d 1102 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
State v. Gallien 613 So. 2d 1145 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
State v. Jenkins 598 So. 2d 558 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
State v. Valentine 570 So. 2d 533 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
State v. Lee 559 So. 2d 1310 La. 1990
State v. Hickman 539 So. 2d 108 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Williams 536 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
the court wrote: Where, as in the instant case, a one-on-one in-field identification is closely associated in time with the commission of the crime and where the suspect is returned to the location of the crime of immediate identification, such identification
State v. Hays 526 So. 2d 1350 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Jackson 517 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
State v. Holmes 516 So. 2d 184 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
Further, the Supreme Court held that an in-field identification made after the subjects were handcuffed and in police custody was permissible.
State v. Parker 511 So. 2d 862 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
(joinder not prejudicial where evidence of each offense is relatively simple and distinct).
State v. Graham 486 So. 2d 1139 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
State v. Coleman 486 So. 2d 995 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986