Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Cushenberry, 407 So. 2d 700.

38 citing documents.

State of Louisiana Versus Alexsy Mejia La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana Versus Lanard A. Lavigne La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana v. Bruce L. Lachney La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
State of Louisiana v. Emile Richard -Aka- Emile Joseph Richard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
State of Louisiana v. Anthony Jack -Aka- Anthony Kwonskiee Jack La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
(wherein the supreme court concluded that the prospective “juror’s comment was less than overwhelming and would not have influenced any other juror even if it was heard” after the prospective juror stated during voir dire that she had been a robbery victim and that the defendant resembled the person
State v. Jack 244 So. 3d 561 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
See also State v. Cushenberry , , 702 (La.1981) (wherein the supreme court concluded that the prospective "juror's comment was less than overwhelming and would not have influenced any other juror even if it was heard" after the prospective juror stated during voir dire that she had been a robbery victim and that the defendant resembled the person th
State of Louisiana v. Kearney Alsandor La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
“A trial court need not order a new trial [or dismiss a jury panel] absent a showing that comments made by a prospective juror affected other jurors or prejudiced Defendant.” Carmouche, 2001-0405 p. 20, 872 So.2d at 1035; -702 (La.1981)
State v. ALSANDOR 970 So. 2d 113 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Carmouche , XXXX-XXXX p. 20, 872 So.2d at 1035 ; -702 (La.1981)
State v. Weary 931 So. 2d 297 La. 2006
Carmouche , XXXX-XXXX p. 20, 872 So.2d at 1035 ; -702 (La.1981)
State v. Price 917 So. 2d 1201 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
State v. Anderson 889 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
State v. Carmouche 872 So. 2d 1020 La. 2003
State v. Brown 793 So. 2d 422 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
The standard to judge whether a mistrial should have been granted is whether the defendant “suffers such substantial prejudice that he has been deprived of any reasonable expectation of a fair trial.” State v. Smith, 433 So.2d at 696
State v. Cotton 687 So. 2d 1074 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
in which the supreme court held that a statement by a prospective juror that the defendant looked similar to a person who had robbed her was not prejudicial and did not have an impact on the other prospective jurors.
State v. Mamon 648 So. 2d 1347 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
State v. Johnson 648 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
State v. Smith, supra, 433 So.2d at 696
State v. McPherson 630 So. 2d 935 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the trial court's ruling denying the defendant's motion for mistrial based upon statements made by a prospective juror.
State v. Stills 600 So. 2d 134 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
State v. White 593 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
State v. White 593 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
State v. Womack 592 So. 2d 872 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
State v. Guy 575 So. 2d 429 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
State v. O'Banion 570 So. 2d 556 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
The standard to judge whether a mistrial should have been granted is whether the defendant “suffers such substantial prejudice that he has been deprived of any reasonable expectation of a fair trial.” State *560 v. Smith, supra at 696
State v. Hearold 567 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
State v. Ritchie 556 So. 2d 651 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
State v. Hall 549 So. 2d 373 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
State v. Moore 534 So. 2d 1275 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
State v. Delahoussaye 534 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Douget 507 So. 2d 283 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
State v. Blankenship 496 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Dean 487 So. 2d 709 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
Under these circumstances, the question complained of here, that Dean was a "dope peddler", shows Dean doing just what he admitted from the stand, and as the trial court observed, is not so strongly prejudicial as to establish grounds for a mistrial, (La.
State v. Green 478 So. 2d 583 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
are inapposite because they refer to remarks made by someone other than a court official.
State v. Chairs 466 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Henry 439 So. 2d 1242 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
held that "[e]xcept in instances in which a mistrial is mandatory, it is warranted only when trial error results in substantial prejudice to the defendant depriving him of a fair trial.
State v. Mayberry 443 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Craddock 435 So. 2d 1110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Smith 433 So. 2d 688 La. 1983
State v. Simmons 443 So. 2d 512 La. 1983
770; [6] State *518 v. Cushenberry