Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Russell, 416 So. 2d 1283.

47 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Brian M. Bonier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
he purpose of the rule is to “prevent surprise and to allow adequate time for preparation of the defense, as well as to avoid certain problems that had been attendant to mentioning of confessions or inculpatory statements in the state’s opening statement.” cert.
State v. Alexander 256 So. 3d 365 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Parker , , 499 (La.1983) ; State v. Russell , , 1288 (La.1982), cert.
State of Louisiana v. Kevin James Alexander -Aka- Kevin J. Alexander -Aka- James K. Alexander -Aka- Kevin Alexander, … La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
The purpose of the rule is to “prevent surprise and to allow adequate time for preparation of the defense, as well as to avoid certain problems that had been attendant to mentioning of confessions or inculpatory statements in the state’s opening statement.” cert.
State v. Ross 195 So. 3d 1210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
at p. 26, 163 So.3d at 88 ( and State v. Banks, 96-2227, pp. 3-4, (La.4/18/97), ).
State of Louisiana v. Latracus Henry La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
However, mistrial is a drastic remedy and should not be ordered absent a showing that the jury was exposed to the prejudicial conduct “and were so impressed by it as to be incapable of rendering a fair and impartial verdict.” cert.
State v. Henry 178 So. 3d 1134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
However, mistrial is a drastic remedy and should not be ordered absent a showing that the jury was exposed to the prejudicial conduct “and were so impressed by it as to be incapable of rendering'a fair and impartial 'verdict.” ce rt.
State v. Berniard 163 So. 3d 71 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
In addition, a mistrial is a drastic remedy that “is not warranted absent a determination that the jurors were actually exposed to the publicity in question and were so impressed by it as to be incapable of rendering a fair and impartial verdict.” see State v. Banks, 96-2227, pp. 3-4 (La.4/18/97), .
State of Louisiana v. Carl J. Webb, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State v. Johnson 41 So. 3d 1188 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
art. 775 prejudicial conduct may include pretrial or midtrial publicity, a mistrial is not warranted “absent a determination that the jurors were actually exposed to the publicity in question and were so impressed by it as to be incapable of rendering a fair and impartial verdict.” State v. Banks, 96-2227 at pp. 2-3 (La.4/18/97), ().
State v. TROQUILLE 986 So. 2d 256 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
State of Louisiana v. Willard Brandenburg La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
This court stated: the Louisiana Supreme Court, when faced with a problem of jury exposure to prejudicial publicity, enunciated a standard by which to judge whether a mistrial is warranted: “A mistrial is not warranted absent a determination that the jurors were actually ex
State v. Brandenburg 949 So. 2d 625 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
This court stated: the Louisiana Supreme Court, when faced with a problem of jury exposure to prejudicial publicity, enunciated a standard by which to judge whether a mistrial is warranted: "A mistrial is not warranted absent a determination that the jurors were actually exposed to the publicity in question and were so impres
State v. Bridgewater 823 So. 2d 877 La. 2002
State v. Banks 692 So. 2d 1051 La. 1997
State v. Williams 688 So. 2d 1277 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
State v. Russel [Russell]
State v. Strickland 683 So. 2d 218 La. 1996
State v. Harris 679 So. 2d 549 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
State v. Banks 677 So. 2d 455 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
State v. Glynn 653 So. 2d 1288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
State v. Christian 649 So. 2d 806 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
State v. Sanders 648 So. 2d 1272 La. 1994
State v. Griffin 618 So. 2d 680 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
State v. Daniels 614 So. 2d 97 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
State v. Bailey 585 So. 2d 1245 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
State v. Young 569 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Hunter 551 So. 2d 1381 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Humphrey 544 So. 2d 1188 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
State v. Hickman 539 So. 2d 108 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Dickerson 538 So. 2d 1063 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
State v. Pearson 529 So. 2d 406 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Jackson 523 So. 2d 251 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
State v. Grant 517 So. 2d 1151 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
State v. Smith 489 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
State v. Reed 483 So. 2d 1275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
1877 , 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972)
State v. Brown 480 So. 2d 948 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Roman 473 So. 2d 897 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
State v. Reynolds 473 So. 2d 886 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
State v. Williams 471 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
wherein the Court said that a mistrial is not warranted absent a determination that the jurors were actually exposed to the publicity in question and were so impressed by it as to be incapable of rendering a fair and impartial verdict.
State v. Harriman 469 So. 2d 298 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Guarisco 466 So. 2d 1356 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
State v. Bailey 457 So. 2d 94 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Prosper 455 So. 2d 673 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Jackson 450 So. 2d 621 La. 1984
State v. Smith 444 So. 2d 262 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Bellows 442 So. 2d 889 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Lastrapes 443 So. 2d 652 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Parker 436 So. 2d 495 La. 1983