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, 427 So. 2d 428.

116 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Cardell A. Hayes La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
    “The contemporaneous objection rule has two purposes: (1) to put the trial judge on notice of the alleged irregularity so that he may cure the problem and (2) to prevent a defendant from gambling for a favorable verdict and then resorting to appeal on errors that might easily have been corrected by objection.” (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Kanethra Burnett La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
    It is well established that “[t]he contemporaneous objection rule has two purposes: (1) to put the trial judge on notice of the alleged irregularity so that he may cure the problem and (2) to prevent a defendant from gambling for a favorable verdict and then resorting to appeal on errors that might easily have been corrected by objection.” (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Marvin Santiago La. 2024
  • State of Louisiana v. Marvin Santiago La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
    App. 4 Cir. 6/15/22), (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Scot Martin Kidd La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
    See also State v. Hongo, 96-2060 (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Hugh Gilliam La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
    It is well established that “[t]he contemporaneous objection rule has two purposes: (1) to put the trial judge on notice of the alleged irregularity so that he may cure the problem and (2) to prevent a defendant from gambling for a favorable verdict and then resorting to appeal on errors that might easily have been corrected by objection.” (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. John James Edmond, Jr. A/K/A Johnny James Edmond, Jr. A/K/A John Edmond, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
    14:30, first degree murder, “the state must prove one of the enumerated circumstances in addition to specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm.”
  • State Of Louisiana v. Cleao Dunn, Jr. La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
  • State of Louisiana v. Desmyne Joseph Henry La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
  • State v. Sandifer 249 So. 3d 142 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    (noting that State v. Thomas , , 435 (La.
  • State v. Hutsell 241 So. 3d 542 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2018
    Also, in LeBlanc , 719 So.2d at 595 (citing State v. Thomas , (La.
  • Ron Warren, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Derek Hebert v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Company La. 2017
    (acknowledging the existence of and the rationales behind the contemporaneous objection rule).
  • Randazzo v. St. Bernard Parish Government 219 So. 3d 1128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    There are two rationales behind the contemporaneous objection rule: "(1) to put the trial judge on notice of the alleged irregularity so that he may cure the problem and (2) to prevent a defendant from gambling for a favorable verdict and then resorting to appeal on errors that might easily have been corrected by objection.” (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Joshua X. Griffin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
    14:30, the legislature defines “first degree murder as the killing of a human being when the offender has specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm under certain circumstances enumerated in the statute.”
  • State v. Griffin 217 So. 3d 484 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    14:30, the legislature defines “first degree murder as the killing of a human being when the offender has specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm under certain circumstances enumerated in the statute.”
  • State v. Vernon 207 So. 3d 525 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    App. 4th Cir. 1990) ( (La.
  • State v. Wilson 208 So. 3d 999 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
  • Ron Warren, Ind. & O/B/O Estate of Derek Hebert v. Shelter Mutual Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    rt previously recognized, there are two rationales behind the contemporaneous objection rule: “(1) to put the trial judge on notice of the alleged irregularity so that he may cure the problem and (2) to prevent a defendant from gambling for a favorable verdict and then resorting to appeal on errors that might easily have been corrected by objection.” (on reh’g).
  • Ron Warren, Ind & Obo Est. of D. Hebert v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    rt previously recognized, there are two rationales behind the contemporaneous objection rule: “(1) to put the trial judge on notice of the alleged irregularity so that he may cure the problem and (2) to prevent a defendant from gambling for a favorable verdict and then resorting to appeal on errors that might easily have been corrected by objection.” (on reh’g).
  • Ron Warren, Ind & Obo Est. of D. Hebert v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    rt previously recognized, there are two rationales behind the contemporaneous objection rule: “(1) to put the trial judge on notice of the alleged irregularity so that he may cure the problem and (2) to prevent a defendant from gambling for a favorable verdict and then resorting to appeal on errors that might easily have been corrected by objection.” (on reh’g).
  • Warren v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co. 196 So. 3d 835 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    that he may cure the problem and (2) to prevent a defendant from gambling for a favorable verdict and then resorting to appeal on errors that might easily have been corrected by objection.” (on reh’g).
  • Warren v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co. 196 So. 3d 850 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    ct. [[Image here]] As this court previously recognized, there are two rationales behind the contemporaneous objection rule: “(1) to put the trial judge on notice of the alleged irregularity so that he may cure the problem and (2) to prevent a defendant from gambling for a favorable verdict and then resorting to appeal on errors that might easily have been corrected by objection.” (on reh’g).
  • Richard Bryant Logan and Carrie Logan v. Dr. Donald Paul Schwab, Jr. 193 So. 3d 118 La. 2016
    ment.3 As this court previously recognized, there are two rationales behind the contemporaneous objection rule: “(1) to put the trial judge on notice of the alleged irregularity so that he may cure the problem and (2) to prevent a defendant from gambling for a favorable verdict and then resorting to appeal on errors that might easily have been corrected by objection.” (La.
  • State v. Small 189 So. 3d 1129 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    P. art. 841(A); State v. Grant, 41,745 (La.App.2d Cir.04/04/07), , writ denied, 07-1193.
  • State of Louisiana v. Carl J. Webb, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • State v. Webb 149 So. 3d 310 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Wallace 143 So. 3d 1275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    the Supreme Court noted that Williamson should not be interpreted as permitting appellate review of every constitutional -violation alleged and erroneous jury instruction claimed on first appeal without a contemporaneous objection.
  • State v. Vallo 131 So. 3d 835 La. 2014
    52(b)”); (on reh’g) (“Williamson should not be construed as authorizing appellate review of every alleged constitutional violation and erroneous jury instruction urged first on appeal without timely objection at occurrence.
  • State of Louisiana v. Jody D. Hamilton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    the defendant appealed asserting the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on the basis of a superceded first degree murder statute.
  • State v. Hamilton 127 So. 3d 76 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State of Louisiana v. Demarcus W. Law La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    (on rehearing) (Williamson “should not be construed as authorizing appellate review of every alleged constitutional violation and erroneous jury instruction urged on appeal without timely objection at occurrence.”); see also Belgard, (to preserv
  • State v. Law 110 So. 3d 1271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    (on rehearing) (Williamson “should not be construed as authorizing appellate review of every alleged constitutional violation and erroneous jury instruction urged on appeal without timely objection at occurrence.”); see also Belgard, (to preserve issue of erroneous instructi
  • State of Louisiana v. Christopher K. Mayeux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    State v. Hongo, 96-2060 (La.
  • State v. Mayeux 128 So. 3d 998 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State v. Brown 85 So. 3d 52 La. 2012
    (on reh’g)(al-though Louisiana does not have the equivalent of “plain error,” “[cjertain rights are so basic that the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that they may be raised for *55 the first time in arrest of judgment.”); (“Defendant properly raised thi
  • State v. Marlowe 81 So. 3d 944 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    State v. Landos, 2007^0082,36 p. 6 (La.4/8/08), , citing State v. Knott, 2005-2252 (La.5/5/06)
  • State of Louisiana v. M. L. Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    trial judge on notice of the alleged irregularity so that he may cure the problem and (2) to prevent a defendant from gambling for a favorable verdict and then resorting to appeal on errors that might easily have been corrected by objection.” n. 6 (La.1991), writ denied, ().
  • State v. ML JR. 35 So. 3d 1183 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    its dual purposes: “(1) to put the trial judge on notice of the alleged irregularity so that he may cure the problem and (2) to prevent a defendant from gambling for a favorable verdict and then resorting to appeal on errors that might easily have been corrected by objection.” n. 6 (La.1991), wr it denied, ().
  • State v. Santos 40 So. 3d 167 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    art. 841; State v. Snyder, 97-226 (La.App.
  • State v. Gibson 38 So. 3d 373 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    State v. Ruffins, 41,033 (La.App.2d Cir. 9/20/06), , ( ).
  • State v. Bickham 24 So. 3d 1030 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • State v. Harris 22 So. 3d 232 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    (on rehearing) (limiting Williamson as it “should not be construed as authorizing appellate review of every alleged constitutional violation and erroneous jury instruction urged first on appeal without timely objection.”) State v. Hongo, supra, FN.
  • State of Louisiana v. Jamie Hubbard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    the trial judge on notice of the alleged irregularity so that he may cure the problem and (2) to prevent a defendant from gambling for a favorable verdict and then resorting to appeal on errors that might easily have been corrected by objection.” n. 6 (La.1991), writ denied, ().
  • State v. Lanclos 980 So. 2d 643 La. 2008
    State v. Knott, 05-2252 (La.5/5/06)
  • State v. Brown 966 So. 2d 1138 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    (on rehearing) ( Williamson "should not be construed as authorizing appellate review of every alleged constitutional violation and erroneous jury instruction urged on appeal without timely objection at occurrence."); see also Belgard, (to preserve issue of erroneous instruct
  • State of Louisiana v. Robert Wayne Brown La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    (on rehearing) (Williamson “should not be construed as authorizing appellate review of every alleged constitutional violation and erroneous jury instruction urged on appeal without timely objection at occurrence.”); see also Belgard, (to preserve issu
  • State v. Kennedy 957 So. 2d 757 La. 2007
    art. 841 ("[a]n irregularity or error cannot be availed of after verdict unless it was objected to at the time of occurrence."); (La.
  • State v. Grant 954 So. 2d 823 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    (on rehearing) ("The contemporaneous objection rule has two purposes: (1) to put the trial judge on notice of the alleged irregularity so that he may cure the problem and (2) to prevent a defendant from gambling for a favorable verdict and then resorting to appeal on errors that might easily have been co
  • State v. Price 952 So. 2d 112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    However, on rehearing, the court warned against equating a patent error review with plain error.
  • State of Louisiana v. Warren Todd Dossman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006