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. McDaniel, 410 So. 2d 754.

33 citing documents.

  • State v. Pugh 750 So. 2d 313 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    *316 To support his argument that the charge at issue is constitutionally defective
  • Distinguished State v. Jackson 694 So. 2d 440 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
    In support of his argument, (La.
  • State v. Gerard 627 So. 2d 174 La. 1993
    In either ease, the court’s instruction compromised the defendant’s right to a unanimous verdict on the act charged against him, a necessary corollary of his fundamental due process protection against “conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.” [quoting In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 , 90 S.Ct.
  • State v. Sam 623 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
    His trial occurred in September, 1984, nearly one year after finality of the State Supreme Court’s
  • State Ex Rel. Taylor v. Whitley 606 So. 2d 1292 La. 1992
    Less than one month later, on February 19, 1982
  • State v. Sullivan 596 So. 2d 177 La. 1992
    Although this court at one time consistently reversed convictions based on the type of incorrect reasonable doubt instruction given to the jury in this case, State v. Moffett, 127 La.
  • State v. Cage 583 So. 2d 1125 La. 1991
    [s]uch an instruction constitutes reversible error".); (an instruction on reasonable doubt directing the jury that reasonable doubt "must be such a doubt that would give rise to a great uncertainty" and that "it must be one that would make you feel *1138 morally uncertain as to the defendant's guilt" constituted reversible error)
  • State v. Owens 567 So. 2d 806 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
    wherein the Supreme Court found that terms such as "great uncertainty" and "morally uncertain" were terms that could mislead or confuse a jury.
  • State v. Bartholomew 562 So. 2d 1086 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    The defendant also complains the trial judge improperly defined reasonable doubt
  • State v. West 552 So. 2d 478 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
  • State v. Holland 544 So. 2d 461 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Humphrey 544 So. 2d 1188 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
    raises doubts about the inclusion of the phrases "morally uncertain" and "great uncertainty"; and similar phrases were used by the trial judge.
  • State v. Flank 537 So. 2d 236 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
    (emphasis added) where the jury charge was flawed, is misplaced.
  • State v. Messiah 538 So. 2d 175 La. 1988
    The record indicates that the "reasonable doubt" instruction in the guilt phase of the defendant's trial arguably raises a and U.S. v. Alvero, 470 F.2d 981 (5th Cir.1972).
  • State v. Washington 522 So. 2d 628 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Washington 522 So. 2d 628 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
  • Distinguished State v. Grant 517 So. 2d 1151 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
  • State v. Holmes 516 So. 2d 184 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
  • State v. Williams 492 So. 2d 1268 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • State v. Smith 491 So. 2d 641 La. 1986
    art. 770; (3) whether, taken as a whole, the final charge to the jury erroneously instructed the jury that it could not go beyond the evidence to find a reasonable doubt
  • State v. Miller 489 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
  • State v. Augustine 482 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
  • State v. Rodney 459 So. 2d 669 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
    where the court reversed a conviction because of the inclusion in the charge of a definition or discussion of the meaning of reasonable doubt which the court found to be misleading and confusing.
  • State v. Vessell 450 So. 2d 938 La. 1984
    As was explained in a footnote in the Gibbs decision, (1984), the error in such an instruction is not merely the omission of the statutory language that reasonable doubt may arise from the lack of evidence, but is that the trial judge specifically limited the jurors to the evidence before them to support a re
  • State v. Clark 446 So. 2d 293 La. 1984
    Nevertheless, this court has approved various efforts to define the concept and has only disapproved when, the court was concerned that the definition could mislead the jury into applying an incorrect standard.
  • State v. Singleton 444 So. 2d 343 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Henry 439 So. 2d 1242 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
    in support of his position that the incorrect instruction on "reasonable doubt" constitutes reversible error.
  • State v. Lathers 444 So. 2d 96 La. 1983
  • State v. Foy 439 So. 2d 433 La. 1983
  • State v. Moore 439 So. 2d 1178 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    * * * * * * Jury charges defining presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt have been recently analyzed in several cases by the Louisiana Supreme Court, (La.
  • State v. Flowers 441 So. 2d 707 La. 1983
  • State v. Ester 436 So. 2d 543 La. 1983
  • State v. Telsee 425 So. 2d 1251 La. 1983