Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Jarman, 445 So. 2d 1184.

132 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Darren Bridges La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
See State v. Martin, 93–0285, p. 17 (La.10/17/94)
State of Louisiana v. Freddy Lee Williams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
State of Louisiana v. Dwight Washington La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
State Of Louisiana v. Ricky Guidry La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
s [ defendant] is no longer baby- sitting because [ aggravated rape victim] might be dead by now," did not warrant mistrial as comment was most fairly construed to be sarcastic remark on defendant' s testimony as opposed to reference to uncharged crime, and there was no indication that prosecutor' s remark so inflamed jury that it influenced jury' s verdict); ( La.
State v. Turner 267 So. 3d 1202 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
1986 , 95 L.Ed.2d 826 (1987) ; State v. Jarman , (La.
State v. Raine 238 So. 3d 1076 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
10/17/94), , 200 ; State v. Jarman , , 1188 (La.
State v. Lee 217 So. 3d 1266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Daniel Brandon Prince -Aka- Daniel B. Prince La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
State v. Prince 211 So. 3d 481 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Jeffrey Clark 220 So. 3d 583 La. 2016
State v. Martin, 93-0285 at p. 18, 645 So.2d at 200 ; (La.
State of Louisiana v. Marcus Donte Reed 200 So. 3d 291 La. 2016
State v. Franklin 198 So. 3d 1222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
See State v. Martin, 93-0285, p. 17 (La.10/17/94), ; (La.
Criticized State of Louisiana v. Asa Bentley AKA - Asa N. Bentley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
Criticized State v. Bentley 182 So. 3d 1269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State of Louisiana v. David Caleb Fontenot La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
State v. Fontenot 160 So. 3d 609 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
243 , 93 L.Ed.2d 168 , (1986)] supra; *619 (La.1984)
State v. Celestain 146 So. 3d 874 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Simms 143 So. 3d 1258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Hoffman, 98-3118, p. 45 (La.4/11/00), ; State v. Martin, 93-0285, p. 18 (La.10/17/94)
State v. Smith 130 So. 3d 874 La. 2013
We also accord due deference “to the good sense and fairmindedness of jurors who have heard the evidence.”
State v. Diggins 126 So. 3d 770 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
“[E]ven if the prosecutor exceeds these bounds, the court will not reverse a conviction unless ‘thoroughly convinced’ that the argument influenced the jury and contributed to the verdict.” Casey , 99-0023 at p. 17, 775 So.2d at 1036 ; see also State v. Martin, 93-0285, p. 17 (La.10/17/94)
State v. Allen 126 So. 3d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Likewise, “even if the prosecutor exceeds these bounds, the court will not reverse a conviction unless ‘thoroughly convinced’ that the argument influenced the jury and contributed to the verdict.” State v. Casey, 99-0023, p. 17, 775 So.2d at 1036 (citing State v. Martin, 93-0285, p. 17 (La.10/17/94), ; ).
State v. Caliste 125 So. 3d 8 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Even where the prosecutor’s statements are improper, “[c]redit should be accorded to the good sense and fairmindedness of jurors who have heard the evidence.”
State v. Lawrence 120 So. 3d 812 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See State v. Martin, 93-0285, p. 18 (La.10/17/94)
State v. Martin 92 So. 3d 1027 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
14:27 and 14:30.1; State v. Barnett, 96-2050 (La.App.
State v. Williams 96 So. 3d 1203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
4 Cir. 2/29/96), ( (La.App.
State v. Sims 75 So. 3d 478 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
Criticized State of Louisiana v. Mary Henderson Trahan La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Criticized State v. Trahan 69 So. 3d 1240 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Patton 68 So. 3d 1209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
2252, 132 L.Ed.2d 260 (1995)
State of Louisiana v. Ricky Joseph Langley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Langley 61 So. 3d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
See State v. Martin, 93-0285 (La.10/17/94), ; (1982).
State v. Freeman 34 So. 3d 541 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
State v. Frank 957 So. 2d 724 La. 2007
See State v. Martin, 93-0285 (La.10/17/94), ; (1982).
Criticized State of Louisiana v. Robert S. Willis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Criticized State v. Willis 915 So. 2d 365 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Legrand 864 So. 2d 89 La. 2004
See State v. Martin, 93-0285 (La.10/17/95), ; (1982).
State of Louisiana v. Scott Allen Cooper La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
State v. Cooper 862 So. 2d 512 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
115 , 74 L.Ed.2d 101 (1982)
State v. Wallace 862 So. 2d 286 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
State v. Gay 830 So. 2d 356 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
State v. Gay 830 So. 2d 356 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
14:30; 14:30.1; State v. Harris, 26,563 (La.App.2d Cir.09/21/94), , writ denied, 94-2607 (La.02/17/95), ; (La.App.
State v. Melancon 826 So. 2d 633 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
State v. Taylor, 93-2201, p. 21 (La.2/28/96)
State v. Bridgewater 823 So. 2d 877 La. 2002
2252 , 132 L.Ed.2d 260 (1995); cert.
State v. Porter 806 So. 2d 64 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Hongo, 96-2060 (La.12/02/97)
State v. Offray 797 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
“Before allegedly prejudicial argument requires reversal, the court must be thoroughly convinced that the jury was influenced by the remarks and that such contributed to the verdict.” State v. Taylor, 93-2201, p. 21 (La.2/28/96)
State v. Pena 788 So. 2d 472 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
“Before allegedly prejudicial argument requires reversal, the court must be thoroughly convinced that the jury was influenced by the remarks and that such contributed to the verdict.” State v. Taylor, 93-2201, p. 21 (La.2/28/96)
Criticized State v. Williams 778 So. 2d 1232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Whitton 770 So. 2d 844 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. Taylor, 93-2201, p. 21 (La.2/28/96)
State v. Hoffman 768 So. 2d 542 La. 2000
See State v. Martin, 93-0285, p. 18 (La.10/17/94)
State v. Casey 775 So. 2d 1022 La. 2000
See State v. Martin, 93-0285, p. 17 (La.10/17/94), ; (La.