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. Simmons, 414 So. 2d 705.

51 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Richard Donovan La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
    Later, we found that Article 782 did not violate either the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments.
  • State of Louisiana v. Anthony Strong La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
    Later, we found that Article 782 did not violate either the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments.
  • State of Louisiana v. Charles Monroe La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
  • State of Louisiana v. Joshua David Evans La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
    Later, we found that Article 782 did not violate either the Fifth or 33 Fourteenth Amendments.
  • State v. Pike 273 So. 3d 488 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
    1980) ; State v. Simmons , , 707 (La.
  • State v. Berry 221 So. 3d 967 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
  • State of Louisiana v. Jon Wray Baumberger La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    Later, we found that Article 782 did not violate either the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments.
  • State of Louisiana v. Eric Abshire La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
  • State of Louisiana v. Daniel Joseph Harmon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • State v. Harmon 139 So. 3d 1195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    State v. Bertrand, 08-2215, 08-2311 (La.3/17/09)
  • State of Louisiana v. Jessie James Duplantis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
  • State v. Duplantis 127 So. 3d 143 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    State v. Bertrand, 08-2215 (La.3/17/09)
  • State v. Mitchell 97 So. 3d 494 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Later, the Court found that LSA-C.Cr.P.
  • Explained State v. Williams 93 So. 3d 830 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    State v. Bertrand, 2008-2215 (La.3/17/09)
  • State v. Funes 87 So. 3d 134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    The State asserts that this claim has no merit, arguing that Louisiana courts have long rejected the claim that a non-unanimous jury verdict is unconstitutional, cit *136 ing State v. Bertrand, 08-2215 (La.3/17/09)
  • State v. Mosley 80 So. 3d 1164 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    See, State v. Bertrand, 2008-2215 (La.3/17/09), ; State v. Divers, 38,524 (La.App.2d Cir.11/23/04),15 *1174 , writ denied, 2004-3186 (La.4/8/05), , cert.
  • State of Louisiana v. v. L. G. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    Later, we found that Article 782 did not violate either the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments.
  • State of Louisiana v. Tanesha Hardy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    Later, we found that Article 782 did not 7 violate either the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments.
  • State of Louisiana v. Kerry Jerrod Sanders La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    1620 (1972); 7 In a related motion for new trial filed below, the defendant alleged that: [A]t least one of the twelve mandatory jurors in the case, was excused from final deliberation and voting by the jury foreman, because the foreman determined that
  • State v. Hardy 72 So. 3d 1017 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Later, we found that Article 782 did not [¿violate either the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments.
  • State v. Sanders 74 So. 3d 284 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    1620 , 32 L.Ed.2d 152 (1972); cert.
  • State v. Wade 77 So. 3d 275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Later, the Court found that LSA-C.Cr.P.
  • Explained State v. Barnett 70 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    State v. Bertrand, 2008-2215 (La.3/17/09)
  • Explained State v. Winslow 55 So. 3d 910 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
  • State v. Bertrand 6 So. 3d 738 La. 2009
    Later, we found that Article 782 did not violate either the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments.
  • State of Louisiana v. Neal W. Insley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    3 Cir. 1988) (), writs denied, (La.
  • State v. Insley 893 So. 2d 209 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    3 Cir.1988) (), writs denied, , 589 (La.1989).
  • State v. James 849 So. 2d 574 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
  • State v. Ancar 746 So. 2d 269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    article 775; State v. Simmons, *274
  • State v. Martin 694 So. 2d 1209 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
  • State v. James 687 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
  • State v. Gamberella 633 So. 2d 595 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
  • State v. Taylor 621 So. 2d 141 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
  • State v. Labom 602 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
  • State v. Landry 583 So. 2d 911 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
  • State v. Worthen 550 So. 2d 399 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Young 532 So. 2d 301 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
  • State v. Brady 524 So. 2d 1356 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Schrader 518 So. 2d 1024 La. 1988
  • State v. Johnson 514 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Fisher 507 So. 2d 1263 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Robertson 509 So. 2d 95 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    This issue is more properly and timely raised by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this court pursuant to art. 322 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but we will consider defendant’s claim as an assignment of error.
  • State v. Smith 496 So. 2d 1221 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    art. 322 provides that “a person held may invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the court of appeal on a claim that the trial court has improperly refused bail or a reduction of bail in a bailable case.” the court held that “the issue of whether or not the trial court has improperly refused bail is neither properly nor timely raised on appeal.
  • State v. Lombard 486 So. 2d 106 La. 1986
    State v. Domingue, 166 La.859, 118 So.
  • State v. Lowenfield 495 So. 2d 1245 La. 1986
  • State v. Rankin 465 So. 2d 679 La. 1985
    14:21; State v. Plain, 171 La.
  • State v. Ducote 452 So. 2d 1305 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Adams 446 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Humphrey 445 So. 2d 1155 La. 1984
    1982) (fifteen years); (twenty-one years); (twelve years); (six years); (ten years); (La.
  • State v. Buchanan 439 So. 2d 576 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983