DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Thomas, 406 So. 2d 1325.

18 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Deonta Ware La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
    In view of the prosecutor’s right to argue the lack of evidence and to respond to defendant’s argument in rebuttal, we are unable to see how defendant was prejudiced by the prosecutor’s reference to the presumption in the instant case.’ Also, at footnote 9, the court stated: ‘There was certainly no error in the prosecutor’s calling to the jury’s attention the failure of the other party to call a witness (as long as the prosecutor did not improperly
  • State v. Preston 178 So. 3d 207 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State v. Brealy 800 So. 2d 1116 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    State v. Carter, 98-24, p. 12 (La.App.
  • State v. Carter 712 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
  • State v. Samuels 657 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
  • State v. Hattaway 621 So. 2d 796 La. 1993
    (Defendant's statutory right to procure and confer with counsel attaches at post-arrest, pre-accusatory line-up); (La.
  • State v. James 551 So. 2d 618 La. 1989
  • State v. James 545 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
  • State v. Robinson 480 So. 2d 329 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    In view of the prosecutor's right to argue the lack of evidence and to respond to defendant’s argument in rebuttal, we are unable to see how defendant was prejudiced by the prosecutor’s reference to the presumption in the instant case.’ •Also, (La.
  • State v. Harrison 471 So. 2d 1088 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Kirkley 470 So. 2d 1001 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Harriman 469 So. 2d 298 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
    the Supreme Court held that even if a defendant's statutory right to counsel was violated by conducting a lineup without the presence of counsel despite the defendant's specific request therefore, the exclusion of the lineup is not required where the lineup was conducted according to fair and standard police
  • State v. Williams 452 So. 2d 182 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • State v. Williams 442 So. 2d 740 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Clark 437 So. 2d 879 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Simone 428 So. 2d 1226 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Also, at footnote 9, the court stated: “There was certainly no error in the prosecutor’s calling to the jury’s attention the failure of the other party to call a witness (as long as the prosecutor did not improp *1229 erly comment on the failure of the defendant to testify).” See also, State v. Strange, 334
  • State v. Russell 416 So. 2d 1283 La. 1982
  • State v. Bowden 406 So. 2d 1316 La. 1981
    We decide the issues presented in both cases in this opinion but render a separate decision in the matter entitled State of Louisiana v. Ronald O’Shea Bowden, , our docket No. 81-KA-1377.