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 v. Dossman 940 So. 2d 876 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    n. 6 (La.1991), writ denied, ().
  • State v. Knott 928 So. 2d 534 La. 2006
    (on reh'g)("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 correct
  • State v. Paul 924 So. 2d 345 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
    In State v. Armant , this Court also stated: the Louisiana Supreme Court noted that Williamson should not be construed as authorizing appellate review of every alleged constitutional violation and erroneous jury instruction raised for the first time on appeal.
  • State v. Gardner 907 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    5 Cir. 5/27/98) , , this Court also stated: the Louisiana Supreme Court noted that Williamson should not be construed as authorizing appellate review of every alleged constitutional violation and erroneous jury instruction raised for the first time on appeal.
  • State v. Brown 861 So. 2d 644 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
  • State v. Simmons 845 So. 2d 1249 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
  • State v. Rodriguez 839 So. 2d 106 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    art. 841; State v. Snyder, 97-226 (La.App.
  • State v. Hines 829 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    State v. Ware, 01-194 (La.App.
  • State v. Jarvis 811 So. 2d 38 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    LeBlanc, 719 So.2d at 595 , .
  • State v. Porter 806 So. 2d 64 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    But, on rehearing, the Supreme Court cautioned: 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 v. Ware 795 So. 2d 495 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
    art. 841; State v. Snyder, 97-226 (La.App.
  • State v. Smith 793 So. 2d 1199 La. 2001
    (on reh'g) (citations omitted) Moreover, the circumstances in this case are not such that we are inclined to revisit Taylor and yet again refine our rules governing procedural defaults in capital cases.
  • State v. Woods 787 So. 2d 1083 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    (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, 706 So.2d at 422, n. 3 .
  • State v. Young 757 So. 2d 797 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    (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 [ State v. ]Belgard, (to preserve issue of erroneo
  • State v. Howard 751 So. 2d 783 La. 1999
    (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 v. Sullivan 729 So. 2d 1101 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    this court in State v. Chisolm, 95-2028 (La.App.
  • State v. LeBlanc 719 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    But, on rehearing, the Supreme Court cautioned: 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 v. Armant 719 So. 2d 510 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    [4] the Louisiana Supreme Court noted that Williamson not be construed as authorizing appellate review of every alleged constitutional violation and erroneous jury instruction raised for the first time on appeal.
  • State v. Hongo 706 So. 2d 419 La. 1997
    (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. Snyder 700 So. 2d 1082 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
  • State v. Chisolm 691 So. 2d 251 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
  • State v. Thomas 665 So. 2d 629 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    Two years later, the supreme court reemphasized the limited applicability of this "plain error"
  • State v. Jynes 652 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
    Notwithstanding the holdings in [ State v. ] Belgard [ ] [(La.1982)], [ State v. ] Thomas [ ] [(La.1982)], and [ State v. ] Latiolais [ ] [(La.App.
  • State v. Price 650 So. 2d 360 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
  • State v. Harris 643 So. 2d 779 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
    in which the supreme court limited the Williamson holding to its facts, in which the Second Circuit held that absent a contemporaneous objection, a defendant was precluded on appeal from complaining of a jury instruction that improperly defined the cr
  • State v. Pyke 640 So. 2d 460 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
  • State v. Soler 636 So. 2d 1069 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
  • State v. Francis 635 So. 2d 305 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
  • State v. Pineyro 631 So. 2d 1203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • State v. Berniard 625 So. 2d 217 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
    The panel in Dobson noted: The Supreme Court has consistently rejected the `plain error' rule; where the court considered that the omission of an instruction that the defenda
  • State v. Holmes 620 So. 2d 436 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
  • State v. Allen 592 So. 2d 486 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
  • State v. Williams 591 So. 2d 404 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
  • State v. Williams 591 So. 2d 404 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
  • State v. Potter 591 So. 2d 1166 La. 1991
  • State v. Potter 578 So. 2d 528 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
  • City of Baton Rouge v. Schmieder 582 So. 2d 1266 La. 1991
  • State v. Cage 583 So. 2d 1125 La. 1991
    (on rehearing); (on rehearing)
  • State v. Williams 580 So. 2d 497 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
    State v. Dobson, id.; (La.App.
  • State v. Dobson 578 So. 2d 533 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
  • State v. Batiste 561 So. 2d 999 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-12.4; (La.App.
  • State v. Burrell 561 So. 2d 692 La. 1990
    1989); (on rehearing); -71 (La.1980) (on rehearing).
  • State v. Ebarb 558 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
  • State v. Williams 554 So. 2d 141 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Rubbicco 550 So. 2d 219 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
  • State v. Falls 544 So. 2d 27 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
  • State v. Arvie 505 So. 2d 44 La. 1987
  • State v. Guidroz 498 So. 2d 108 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
  • State ex rel. Burnham v. Blackburn 484 So. 2d 656 La. 1986
    Baldwin v. Blackburn, supra, 653 F.2d at 951 ; compare, (on rehearing).
  • State v. Byrne 483 So. 2d 564 La. 1986