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. Burdgess, 434 So. 2d 1062.

87 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Christopher D. Rodgers La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
  • State of Louisiana v. Brian M. Bonier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
  • State of Louisiana v. Erick Gail Gragg La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
    “It is well settled that a new basis for an objection may not be raised 17 for the first time on appeal.”
  • State Of Louisiana v. David Brown La. 2022
  • State of Louisiana v. Reokenski Vodise Thomas AKA Reokenski Thomas La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
    the supreme court discussed when other crimes evidence not otherwise admissible must result in a mistrial as opposed to situations where the trial court has the discretion to admonish the jury to disregard such, as follows: Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 770 provides in part that: Upon
  • State v. Thomas 258 So. 3d 708 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    In State v. Burdgess , , 1065 (La.1983) the supreme court discussed when other crimes evidence not otherwise admissible must result in a mistrial as opposed to situations where the trial court has the discretion to admonish the jury to disregard such, as follows: Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 770 provides in part that: Upon m
  • State of Louisiana v. Jeffrey Clark 220 So. 3d 583 La. 2016
  • State v. Wilson 142 So. 3d 275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    1342 , 143 L.Ed.2d 505 (1999); State v. Winfrey, 97-427 (La.App.
  • State v. Norah 131 So. 3d 172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State v. Kiger 128 So. 3d 552 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2013
    1342 , 143 L.Ed.2d 505 (1999); State v. Winfrey, 97-427 (La.App.
  • State v. Holden 83 So. 3d 1140 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    1342 , 143 L.Ed.2d 505 (1999); State v. Winfrey, 97-427, p. 23 (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. Paul Roberts, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    We have said: Furthermore, the supreme court has held that a “transcript of a tape [is] admissible over a best evidence objection, since the transcript provide[s] the jury with a convenience in following the playback of the 36 tape.” ().
  • State v. Roberts 947 So. 2d 208 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
  • State v. Rhodes 881 So. 2d 1263 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
  • State v. Moore 877 So. 2d 1027 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
    State v. Warren, 28,889 (La.App.2d Cir.12/11/96), .
  • State v. Harris 871 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
    the defendant challenged the denial of a motion to suppress his confession contending that his confession was given as the direct result of the involuntary confession of a severed co-defendant.
  • State v. Johnson 860 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    1342 , 143 L.Ed.2d 505 (1999); State v. Winfrey, 97-427, p. 23 (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. Elbertine Demery Sykes La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    Furthermore, the supreme court has held that a “transcript of a tape [is] admissible over a best evidence objection, since the transcript provide[s] the jury with a convenience in following the playback of the tape.” (
  • State v. Sykes 857 So. 2d 638 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
  • State v. Enclard 850 So. 2d 845 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    1342 , 143 L.Ed.2d 505 (1999); (La.App.
  • State v. Sandoval 841 So. 2d 977 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    1342 , 143 L.Ed.2d 505 (1999); State v. Winfrey, 97-427 (La.App.
  • State v. Nightengale 818 So. 2d 819 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    State v. Matthews, 26,550 (La.App.2d Cir.12/21/94), , writ denied, 95-0435 (La.06/16/95), .
  • State v. Anderson 784 So. 2d 666 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
  • State v. Tran 743 So. 2d 1275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
  • State v. Johnson 728 So. 2d 901 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    State v. Winfrey, 97-427, p. 23 (La.App.
  • State v. Winfrey 703 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
  • State v. Bryant 694 So. 2d 556 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    2049 , 85 L.Ed.2d 322 (1985)
  • State v. Ingram 688 So. 2d 657 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
  • State v. Wesley 685 So. 2d 1169 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    the Supreme Court, interpreting this constitutional provision, stated: A person adversely affected by a confession unlawfully obtained from another has no standing to raise its illegality in court...
  • State v. Warren 712 So. 2d 500 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
  • State v. Foret 685 So. 2d 210 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
  • State v. Walker 681 So. 2d 1023 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    art. 841; State v. Smith, 26,661 (La.App.
  • State v. Kimble 688 So. 2d 552 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    [3] Anent standing to challenge a confession improperly obtained from a third party, (La.App.
  • State v. Mitchell 674 So. 2d 250 La. 1996
  • State v. Tart 672 So. 2d 116 La. 1996
  • State v. Billiot 672 So. 2d 361 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
  • State v. Hidalgo 668 So. 2d 1188 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
    Because a new basis for an objection may not be raised for the first time on appeal, the defendant's *1195 assignment of error is limited to the grounds of gruesomeness.
  • State v. Parker 661 So. 2d 603 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
  • State v. Williams 651 So. 2d 331 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    2049 , 85 L.Ed.2d 322 (1985)
  • State v. Matthews 649 So. 2d 1022 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
  • State v. Dugar 643 So. 2d 870 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
  • State v. Isaac 639 So. 2d 337 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    -1065 (La.1983); (La.App.
  • State v. Brossette 634 So. 2d 1309 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
  • State v. LeBlanc 618 So. 2d 949 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
  • State v. Carlos 618 So. 2d 933 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
  • State v. Butler 615 So. 2d 496 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
  • State v. Quatrevingt 617 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
  • State v. Beach 610 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    -1065 (La.1983); (La.App.
  • State v. Martin 607 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
  • State v. Broussard 598 So. 2d 1302 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    for the admissability of the videotape during jury deliberations since the admissability of videotapes is governed by the same rules as photographs.