DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Jackson, 450 So. 2d 621.

168 citing documents.

  • State v. Olidge 575 So. 2d 400 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
  • State v. Scott 573 So. 2d 556 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
  • State v. Mitchell 572 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
  • State v. Rock 571 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
  • State v. Miller 571 So. 2d 603 La. 1990
  • State v. Peddy 569 So. 2d 1035 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
  • State v. Lee 559 So. 2d 1310 La. 1990
  • State v. Wiggins 556 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
  • State v. Rogers 553 So. 2d 453 La. 1989
    art. 709; State v. Bland, 253 La.
  • State v. Johnson 553 So. 2d 865 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    the court noted that: The purpose of giving defendant sufficient notice of each inculpatory statement the state intends to use is to permit defendant a fair opportunity to meet the issue.
  • State v. Lubrano 550 So. 2d 1283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • State v. Laird 548 So. 2d 373 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
    Art. 716: Cf. LSA-C.Cr.P.
  • State v. Hall 549 So. 2d 373 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    3571 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1411 (1983)
  • State v. Tarleton 545 So. 2d 1195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • State v. Rosell 544 So. 2d 1296 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • State v. Guillory 544 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Holland 544 So. 2d 461 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Presley 542 So. 2d 1171 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Martin 543 So. 2d 1020 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Ray 542 So. 2d 1124 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • State v. Gabriel 542 So. 2d 528 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
  • State v. Weiland 540 So. 2d 1288 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
    the Supreme Court of Louisiana stated at page 628: "The criminal records of prospective jurors may be useful to the state in its desire to challenge jurors with inclinations or biases against the state.
  • State v. Rogers 540 So. 2d 1155 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • State v. Watkins 532 So. 2d 1182 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Washington 533 So. 2d 392 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
  • State v. Washington 533 So. 2d 392 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. White 535 So. 2d 929 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
  • State v. Broussard 527 So. 2d 1216 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Jones 526 So. 2d 1374 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Huntley 526 So. 2d 1313 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
  • State v. Moorehead 524 So. 2d 105 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. Crook 517 So. 2d 1131 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
  • State v. McDaniel 515 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Murphy 515 So. 2d 558 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Durocher 514 So. 2d 581 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    the Louisiana Supreme Court stated as follows: “When the penalty imposed by the statute is a mandatory one, the trial judge must inform the jury of the penalty on request of the defendant and must permit the defense to argue the penalty to the jury.
  • State v. Prestridge 507 So. 2d 1271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. St. Romain 505 So. 2d 223 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Zihlavsky 505 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Burns 504 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Williams 497 So. 2d 333 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • State v. Roy 496 So. 2d 583 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • State v. Petta 496 So. 2d 390 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
  • State v. Obran 496 So. 2d 1132 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
  • State v. Dakin 495 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • State v. Cathey 493 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
  • State v. Bowman 491 So. 2d 1380 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
  • State v. Miller 490 So. 2d 486 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • State v. Nogess 490 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    Although the state’s failure to comply with the article is error, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: If a defendant is misled by state responses relative to the state's possession of oral inculpatory statement and is lulled into a misapprehension of the strength of the state’s case and suffers prejudice when the statement is subsequently introduced at trial, basic unfairn