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. Duplessis, 457 So. 2d 604.

49 citing documents.

  • State Of Louisiana v. David H. Brown (Parish of Lafourche) Convictions Affirmed; Death Sentences Reversed; Case Remanded For … La. 2021
  • State v. Harris 235 So. 3d 1354 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2017
    However, it is permissible for voir dire questions to “reasonably explore the juror’s potential prejudices, predispositions or misunderstandings relevant to the central issues of the particular case.” (La.
  • State v. Bravo 219 So. 3d 1213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    It is permissible for voir dire questions to “reasonably explore the juror’s potential prejudices, predispositions or misunderstandings relevant to the central issues of the particular case.” (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Marcus Donte Reed 200 So. 3d 291 La. 2016
  • State v. Flores 167 So. 3d 801 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Watkins 146 So. 3d 294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Cushenberry 146 So. 3d 777 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    State v. Manning, 03-1982, p. 75 (La.10/19/04), (citing State v. Brumfield, 96-2667 (La.10/20/98), ).
  • State v. Tassin 129 So. 3d 1235 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2013
    The Louisiana Supreme Court has commented that it “seldom reverses convictions on the basis of prosecutorial argument (because jurors are generally told repeatedly that they must decide the case on the evidence and that arguments of counsel do not constitute evidence).”
  • State v. Augustine 131 So. 3d 109 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    State v. Manning, 03-1982, p. 75 (La.10/19/04), (citing State v. Brumfield, 96-2667 (La.10/20/98), ).
  • State v. Carter 128 So. 3d 1108 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    However, it is permissible for voir dire questions to “reasonably explore the juror’s potential prejudices, | ^predispositions or misunderstandings relevant to the central issues of the particular case.”
  • State v. Bailey 126 So. 3d 702 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    State v. Manning, 2003-1982, p. 75 (La.10/19/04), , citing State v. Brumfield, 96-2667, p. 9 (La.10/20/98), , 666
  • State v. Allen 126 So. 3d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    4 State v. Brumfield, *680 96-2667, p. 9 (La.10/20/98)
  • State v. Hollins 123 So. 3d 840 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    State v. Brumfield, 96-2667, p. 4 (La.10/20/98), ; (prosecutor’s comment that “a bus full of witnesses would not be enough for defense counsel because he was a ‘very skillful lawyer’ ” improper).
  • State of Louisiana v. Donald Runnels La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • State v. Runnels 101 So. 3d 1046 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State v. Pittman 892 So. 2d 641 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
  • State v. Manning 885 So. 2d 1044 La. 2004
    1267 , 143 L.Ed.2d 362 (1999); (State's comment that "a bus full of witnesses would not be enough for defense counsel because he was a `very skillful lawyer'" improper), in this case, it appears the State was neither making complimentary nor disparaging comments about counsel, but rather referring to the merits of arguments set forth
  • State v. Fradieu 851 So. 2d 345 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    in support of his argument that a personal attack on defense counsel in closing argument is grounds for granting a new trial.
  • State v. Wells 755 So. 2d 963 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
  • State v. Varnado 753 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    the Supreme Court held that when the behavior of the prosecutor and the trial judge gives the appearance of that the trial judge is abandoning his the role of neutral arbiter, "a new trial is the only means of affording the defendant a fair opportunity to have the jury decide his guilt or innocence."
  • State v. Thibodeaux 750 So. 2d 916 La. 1999
    at 668-69; conviction reversed on other grounds ; (La.
  • State v. Davis 726 So. 2d 500 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
  • State v. Brumfield 737 So. 2d 660 La. 1998
  • State v. Brown 692 So. 2d 735 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
  • State v. Morris 691 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    His `right to intelligently exercise cause and peremptory challenges may not be curtailed by the exclusion of nonrepetitious voir dire questions which reasonably explore the jurors' potential prejudices, predispositions or misunderstandings relevant to the central issues of the particular case.'" State v. Bell, 477 So.2d at 766
  • State v. Hamilton 681 So. 2d 1217 La. 1996
  • State v. Colligan 679 So. 2d 184 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
  • State v. Thomas 680 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    Rather, the trial judge displayed a "grudging attitude" toward the defense's questions, (La.
  • State v. Allen 633 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    State v. Bell, 477 So.2d at 766 , (La.
  • State v. Strange 619 So. 2d 817 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    Jones, 596 So.2d at 1367 .
  • State v. Tyler 619 So. 2d 807 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
  • State v. Hall 616 So. 2d 664 La. 1993
    Rather, the trial judge displayed a "grudging attitude" toward the defense's questions, ("the trial judge displayed a grudging attitude toward the asking of those proper questions, resulting in the appearance before the jury that defense counsel was wasting time on frivolous technical defenses.").
  • State v. Jones 596 So. 2d 1360 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
  • State v. Jones 593 So. 2d 802 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
  • State v. Lee 559 So. 2d 1310 La. 1990
  • State v. Gilmore 529 So. 2d 859 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
  • State v. Jones 526 So. 2d 1374 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Ancar 508 So. 2d 943 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
  • State v. Jenkins 508 So. 2d 191 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Wade 508 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Deboue 496 So. 2d 394 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
  • State v. Thompson 495 So. 2d 328 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
  • State v. Brumfield 482 So. 2d 207 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    4 *210 “The accused’s right to intelligently exercise cause and peremptory challenges may not be curtailed by the exclusion of non-repetitious voir dire questions which reasonably explore the juror’s potential prejudices, predispositions or misunderstandings relevant to the central issues of the particular case.”
  • State v. Hamilton 481 So. 2d 135 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
    for an example of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct that rises to the level of reversible error.
  • State v. Bell 477 So. 2d 759 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Jarreau 476 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Reado 472 So. 2d 271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Burton 464 So. 2d 421 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Williams 457 So. 2d 610 La. 1984