Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Taylor, 410 So. 2d 224.

31 citing documents.

State Of Louisiana v. Henry Taylor La. 2025
State v. Harris 968 So. 2d 187 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
State v. Hall 647 So. 2d 453 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
the court approved an instruction which defined reasonable doubt as "a reasonable one, that is, one founded upon a real, tangible, substantial basis, and not upon mere caprice, fancy or conjecture."
State v. Thomas 637 So. 2d 1272 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
(upholding Cage instruction).
Criticized State v. Wolfe 630 So. 2d 872 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
State v. Barker 628 So. 2d 168 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
State v. Sam 623 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
The holdings in these cases were diluted later by reference to several prior cases in which the court reviewed such instructions “as a whole ” to determine whether reasonable persons of ordinary intelligence would understand the definition of “reasonable doubt.”
State v. Evans 627 So. 2d 664 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
State v. Montegut 618 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
State Ex Rel. Taylor v. Whitley 606 So. 2d 1292 La. 1992
State v. Harrison 588 So. 2d 771 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
State v. Jones 582 So. 2d 973 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Because the present jury charge defines the term “reasonable doubt” so reasonable persons of ordinary intelligence would have no problem understanding that phrase, this assignment of error has no merit.
State v. West 568 So. 2d 1019 La. 1990
Overruled State v. Cage 554 So. 2d 39 La. 1989
Distinguished State v. West 552 So. 2d 478 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
[4] *481 The entire instruction does, however, (La.
State v. Humphrey 544 So. 2d 1188 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
Nevertheless, ("grave uncertainty" and "moral certainty"); (La.App.
State ex rel. Hayes 536 So. 2d 1294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
a reasonable doubt was defined as follows: A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt.
State v. Flank 537 So. 2d 236 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
94 , 102 L.Ed.2d 70 (1988)
State v. Messiah 538 So. 2d 175 La. 1988
State v. Washington 522 So. 2d 628 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
However, the Supreme Court upheld a lengthy jury charge that, taken as a whole, presented no problems for persons of ordinary intelligence to understand the definition of reasonable doubt.
State v. Washington 522 So. 2d 628 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
However, the Supreme Court upheld a lengthy jury charge that, taken as a whole, presented no problems for persons of ordinary intelligence to understand the definition of reasonable doubt.
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
A jury charge is permissible if "reasonable persons of ordinary intelligence would have no problem in understanding the definition of `reasonable doubt.'"
State v. Williams 492 So. 2d 1268 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Miller 489 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
[2] a similar charge, which defined reasonable doubt as "a doubt as would give rise to a grave uncertainty" was held not to be erroneous or prejudicial.
State v. Augustine 482 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
Succession of Riggio 468 So. 2d 1279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Rodney 459 So. 2d 669 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
decided shortly before McDaniel .
State v. Johnson 458 So. 2d 937 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Moore 439 So. 2d 1178 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
the charge to the jury defined "reasonable doubt" as one which would "give rise to a grave uncertainty", and in each case, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the charge was not erroneous or prejudicial.
State v. Ester 436 So. 2d 543 La. 1983