Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Kahey, 436 So. 2d 475.

353 citing documents.

State v. Thompson 848 So. 2d 703 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
State v. Jones 846 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Another case in which the Louisiana Supreme Court determined that the defendant had made a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to a (1983).
State v. Joseph 854 So. 2d 914 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
State v. Durden 842 So. 2d 1244 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
State v. Pierre 842 So. 2d 321 La. 2003
art. 780; -47 (La.1977).
State v. Farhood 844 So. 2d 217 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
5 Cir. 10/15/97) , at 58 , writ denied, 97-2892 (La.3/20/98), , this Court, discussed the three prerequisites that must be satisfied before evidence of other crimes is admitted as proof of intent: "(1) the prior acts must be similar, ...
State v. Hall 843 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
State v. Wright 840 So. 2d 1271 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
State v. Robinson, 29,488 (La.App.2d Cir.6/18/97), , writ denied, 97-1845 (La.12/12/97)
State v. Griffin 839 So. 2d 1148 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
63 , 62 L.Ed.2d 42 (1979), cited in State v. Kahey, [ ].
State v. Thomas 840 So. 2d 25 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
State v. Ruffin 836 So. 2d 625 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
State v. Guerra 834 So. 2d 1206 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
2nd Cir.1984), writ denied
State v. Santee 834 So. 2d 533 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
State v. Pierre 827 So. 2d 619 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
State v. Allen 828 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
State v. Mead 823 So. 2d 1045 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
State v. Harris, 00-3459 (La.02/26/02), ; State v. Ellis, 28,282 (La.
State v. Batchelor 823 So. 2d 367 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
State v. Chism 821 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
State v. Ellis, 28,282 (La.App.
State v. Wilson 803 So. 2d 102 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
-485 (La.1983), the Louisiana Supreme Court accepted the definition of an actual conflict of interest as set out in Zuck v. State of Ala., 588 F.2d 436, 439 (5th Cir.1979): If a defense attorney owes duties to a party whose interests are adverse to those of the defendant, then an actual conflict exists.
State v. Roberts 796 So. 2d 779 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
State v. MM 802 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
State v. M.M. 802 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Holmes 791 So. 2d 669 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
State v. Williams 786 So. 2d 203 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
State v. Wesley, supra .
State v. Kennedy 803 So. 2d 916 La. 2001
(citing McCormick, Evidence, § 190 (Cleary ed. 1972)).
State v. Johnson 778 So. 2d 706 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
State v. Jackson 774 So. 2d 1046 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
State v. Davenport 771 So. 2d 837 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
State v. Quest 772 So. 2d 772 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Jolly 768 So. 2d 165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
State v. Tilley 767 So. 2d 6 La. 2000
State v. Wommack 770 So. 2d 365 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
State v. Wesley 759 So. 2d 286 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
State v. Hoffman 768 So. 2d 542 La. 2000
State v. Demease 756 So. 2d 1264 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
State v. McGee 757 So. 2d 50 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. Frank 758 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
In addressing the issue of a defendant’s right to be present at such preliminary hearings, -84 (La.1983), explained: | fiPresence of the defendant is a condition of due process to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence, and to that extent only.
State v. Causey 752 So. 2d 287 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. James 751 So. 2d 419 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Thomas 750 So. 2d 1114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
State v. Smith 748 So. 2d 1139 La. 1999
("An actual conflict of interest is established when the defendant proves that his attorney was placed in a situation inherently conducive to divided loyalties.") (citing Zuck v. Alabama, 588 F.2d 436, 439 (5th Cir.1979)).
State v. Alexis 738 So. 2d 57 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State v. Wessinger 736 So. 2d 162 La. 1999
Further, : Presence of the defendant is a condition of due process to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence, and to that extent only.
State v. Hernandez 735 So. 2d 888 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
stating: Presence of the defendant is a condition of due process to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence, and to that extent only.
State v. Arrington 738 So. 2d 1087 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Harge 730 So. 2d 983 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Cangelosi 722 So. 2d 1107 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
State v. Wright, 94-682 (La.App.
State v. Smith 715 So. 2d 1226 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
State v. Hebert 716 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
the court stated the following regarding the absence of the defendant from two pre-trial motions: Presence of the defendant is a condition of due process to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence, and to that extent only.
State v. Francis 715 So. 2d 457 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
State v. Robinson, 29,488, p. 3 (La.App.