Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite In Re Milkovich, 493 So. 2d 1186.

21 citing documents.

Lonesome Development, LLC v. Town of Abita Springs La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
Rafael Antonio Mena Chavez A/K/A Sergio Balboa, Individually and on Behalf of His Minor Children, Ingrid Mena Perez … La. 2024
State of Louisiana v. J.K., Jr. (In re: Ross Shacklette contempt proceedings) La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
Jackson's Landing North v. Garnisha Phillips La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
In Re: Henry L. Klein La. 2023
See In re: Milkovich, -99 (La.
Succession of Alma A. Bailey . La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
mpt is a crime in every fundamental respect, and the defendant in a criminal contempt proceeding is entitled to the basic constitutional protections such as the presumption of innocence, the right to proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the right not to be compelled to testify against himself.” (citing Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 88 S.Ct.
State v. Davis 273 So. 3d 670 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
1991) ; In re Milkovich , (La.
State v. Mitchell 178 So. 3d 203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Mason Godfrey v. Paul Reggie La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
However, in a criminal contempt, i.e., one which is designed to punish the offender for ―contemptuous behavior in the presence of the court[,]‖ the accused is entitled to certain constitutional safeguards, including ―the presumption of innocence, the right to proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the right not to be compelled to testify against himself.‖ -89 (La.1986).
Godfrey v. Reggie 94 So. 3d 82 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
However, in a criminal contempt, i.e., one which is designed to punish the offender for “contemptuous behavior in the presence of the court[,]” the accused is entitled to certain constitutional safeguards, including “the presumption of innocence, the right to proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the right not to be compelled to testify against himself.” -89 (La.1986).
Rogers v. Dickens 959 So. 2d 940 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Meek v. Meek 827 So. 2d 1191 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
|fiUnder the facts of an attorney’s repetitious legal argument during his opening statement in a criminal trial, after the court had ordered him not to argue the case at that stage of the trial and had sustained four objections to his argument, was found insufficient to support a contempt conviction.
State v. Lee 800 So. 2d 833 La. 2001
[T]he appellate court must determine that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. *841 Captville, (burden of proof in a criminal contempt proceeding is proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt).
State v. Hooker 763 So. 2d 738 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State in Interest of R.J.S.
State v. Johnston 757 So. 2d 689 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
In the Louisiana Supreme Court noted the applicability of the Jackson v. Virginia standard in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a contempt citation, concluding as follows: Thus, an appellate court reviewing this conviction of criminal contempt under Article 21(5) must determine that t
Richey v. Richey 733 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
Estate of Graham v. Levy 636 So. 2d 287 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
1423, 1429 , 99 L.Ed.2d 721 (1988)
State v. Bullock 576 So. 2d 453 La. 1991
Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Britton 539 So. 2d 962 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
An attorney's repetitious legal argument during his opening statement in a criminal jury trial, after the court had ordered him not to argue the case at that stage of the trial and had sustained four prosecution objections to his argument, was found insufficient to support a contempt conviction in (La.
GEO-JE'S CIVIC ASS'N INC. v. Reed 525 So. 2d 192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Burns 504 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Support for this result can be obtained from the recent decision of