Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Summit, 454 So. 2d 1100.

29 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana Versus Isaiah Doyle La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2021
    27 Evidence that a capital defendant shows lack of remorse is “relevant to the character and propensities of the defendant.” ( rev’d on other grounds, Summit v. Blackburn, 795 F.2d 1237 (5th Cir.1986)); State v. Juniors, 03-2425 (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Robert Leroy McCoy 218 So. 3d 535 La. 2016
  • State of Louisiana v. Marcus Donte Reed 200 So. 3d 291 La. 2016
  • State v. Odenbaugh 82 So. 3d 215 La. 2011
    2d 90 ; State v. Howard, 98-0064 (La.4/23/99), ; State v. Gradley, 97-0641 (La.5/19/98), ; State v. Robertson, 97-0177 (La.3/4/98)
  • State v. Holmes 5 So. 3d 42 La. 2008
    2159 , 85 L.Ed.2d 514 (1985); cert.
  • State v. Anderson 996 So. 2d 973 La. 2008
    1280 ; State v. Howard, 98-0064 (La.4/23/99), ; State v. Gradley, 97-0641 (La.5/19/98), ; State v. Robertson, 97-0177 (La.3/4/98)
  • State v. Frank 957 So. 2d 724 La. 2007
    airness of the proceedings and reliability of sentencing verdict, even though statements were unprofessional attacks and came dangerously close to reversible error); State v. Taylor, 93-2201 at 21-22, -76 (La.1996)(prosecutor's statement that giving the death penalty is "the right thing to do," and that, "anything else would be a disgrace" not reversible error); (although prosecutor may not suggest that protections to the rights of the accused are inconvenient hindrances, he may compare the tria
  • State v. Juniors 915 So. 2d 291 La. 2005
    ( rev'd on other grounds, Summit v. Blackburn, 795 F.2d 1237 (5th Cir.1986)).
  • State v. Cosey 779 So. 2d 675 La. 2000
    2159 , 85 L.Ed.2d 514 (1985); cert.
  • State v. Casey 775 So. 2d 1022 La. 2000
    2159 , 85 L.Ed.2d 514 (1985); cert.
  • State v. Brooks 765 So. 2d 993 La. 1999
    art. 905.3 provides that a trial judge “may decline to instruct the jury on any aggravating circumstance not supported by evidence.” The article serves the salutary purpose of “preventing] confusion by narrowing the jury’s list of aggravating circumstances to those actually urged by the prosecutor and arguably supported by the evidence.” n. 13 (La.1984).
  • State v. Hampton 750 So. 2d 867 La. 1999
    (although prosecutor may not suggest that protections to the rights of the accused are inconvenient hindrances, he may compare the trial afforded the defendant to the "summary execution" of his victim, even to the extent of asking the jurors to give defendant the "same justice" that he gave to the victim).
  • State v. Williams 708 So. 2d 703 La. 1998
    Though a lack of remorse is a relevant factor for the sentencing jury's consideration, (La.
  • State v. Bourque 699 So. 2d 1 La. 1997
  • State v. Thibodeaux 687 So. 2d 477 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
  • State v. Robertson 516 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Kyles 513 So. 2d 265 La. 1987
  • State v. Brown 508 So. 2d 118 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); cert.
  • State v. Delatte 506 So. 2d 898 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    writ denied, 470 U.S. 1038 , 105 S.Ct.
  • State v. Williams 490 So. 2d 255 La. 1986
    See State v. Wingo, supra ; (La.
  • State v. Byrne 483 So. 2d 564 La. 1986
  • State v. Hookfin 476 So. 2d 481 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Carney 476 So. 2d 364 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Long 473 So. 2d 901 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Williams 480 So. 2d 721 La. 1985
  • State v. Wilson 467 So. 2d 503 La. 1985
  • State v. David 468 So. 2d 1133 La. 1985
    And, , 1107 n. 13 (La.1984), the author of the majority opinion recited in a footnote that it is a preferable practice to narrow the jury's list to aggravating circumstances "actually urged by the prosecutor and arguably supported by the evidence."
  • State v. Green 463 So. 2d 657 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Wingo 457 So. 2d 1159 La. 1984
    In this case, State v. Watson , above; State v. Glass , above; the jury was presented with an intentional killing of an innocent victim during the perpetration of an armed robbery.