Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Green, 493 So. 2d 1178.

51 citing documents.

State of Louisiana Versus Bunnak Landon, AKA Hannah Landon, AKA Bunnak Lim La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana v. William G Perkins La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
824, 827, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)
State of Louisiana Versus Blaise Gravois La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana Versus Blaise Gravois La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
State of Louisiana v. Isame Henry Faciane A/K/A Isame Faciance La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
Attempting to refute the State’s argument of lack of remorse, Defendant * 12 argues that if he felt no remorse for his sins, he would not have “bared his soul to his spiritual advisor.” Although Defendant makes no argument that the trial court failed to provide specific reasons for the sentences imposed, he states that “without any apparent consideration of La.Code of Criminal Pr
Keith v. Keith 140 So. 3d 1202 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
State of Louisiana v. William King, III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. King 124 So. 3d 623 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Magee 103 So. 3d 285 La. 2012
824, 827 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)
John Haas Weinstein v. Linda Allen Weinstein La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Lirette v. Roe, 93- 0441 (La.App.
Weinstein v. Weinstein 62 So. 3d 878 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Lirette v. Roe, 93-0441 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Bacardny Wayne George La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
State v. George 19 So. 3d 614 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Davis 930 So. 2d 1099 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967); *1108 State v. Juniors, 03-2425 (La.6/29/05)
State v. Juniors 915 So. 2d 291 La. 2005
824, 827 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)
Kyle v. Louisiana Public Service Com'n 878 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
in support of his position that the privilege should be narrowly construed, asserting that: The privilege remains an exception to the general duty to disclose.
State v. Menard 844 So. 2d 1117 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
State v. Gilliam 842 So. 2d 1198 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
In support of this argument
Spicer v. Gambel 789 So. 2d 741 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
Lirette v. Roe, 93-0441 (La.App.
State v. Williams 786 So. 2d 203 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
State v. Rose 732 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)
Kosmitis v. Bailey 685 So. 2d 1177 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
art. 506; Smith v. Kavanaugh, Pierson & Talley
State v. Bright 676 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
In support of this argument, (La.
State v. Broussard 649 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); ).
Lirette v. Roe 631 So. 2d 503 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
State v. Tammetta 624 So. 2d 433 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
State v. Quatrevingt 617 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
State v. Watson 609 So. 2d 1198 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
the Louisiana Supreme Court stated the following: “In the area of attorney-client privilege, lawyers should be guided by the Ethical Considerations and Disciplinary Rules of the Louisiana State Bar Associations’s Code of Professional Responsibility (see Title 37, Chapter 4 — Appendix, of the Revised S
State v. Jeansonne 580 So. 2d 1010 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
The test, at 1185 (La.1986), is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the defendant's conviction and whether the court can declare a belief that the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. Laviolette 576 So. 2d 1000 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
State v. Carter 572 So. 2d 1131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Lee 569 So. 2d 1038 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
State v. Jeansonne 567 So. 2d 802 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
at 1185 (La.1986): “In order to determine if improperly admitted evidence has prejudiced a defendant, this court has adopted the test for harmless error announced in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct.
State v. Romero 574 So. 2d 330 La. 1990
824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); (La.
State v. Lee 559 So. 2d 1310 La. 1990
State v. Swayze 554 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
La Nasa v. Fortier 553 So. 2d 1022 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
State v. Skaggs 551 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
It states: “No legal adviser is permitted, whether during or after the termination of his employment as such, unless with his client’s express consent, to disclose any communication made to him as such legal adviser by or on behalf of his client, or any advice given by him to his client, or any information that he may have gotten by reason of his being such legal adviser.” the Louisiana Supreme Court enumerated three factors which must be met before a client may claim the benefit of the privileg
State v. Smith 554 So. 2d 676 La. 1989
(erroneous denial of admission of evidence); later appeal, (La.App.
State v. Taplette 545 So. 2d 985 La. 1989
we find that the state did not meet its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the introduction of the gun did not contribute to the defendant’s conviction.
State v. Fleury 545 So. 2d 1208 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
677 , 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981)
State v. Mullins 537 So. 2d 386 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
State v. Walters 523 So. 2d 811 La. 1988
824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)
State v. Wooley 523 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
nless with his client’s express consent, to disclose any communication made to him as such legal adviser by or on behalf of his client, or any advice given by him to his client, or any information that he may have gotten by reason of his being such legal adviser.” However, before defendant can argue his inability to waive the above privilege, the following requisites, must be established.
State v. Martin 519 So. 2d 87 La. 1988
State v. Brown 514 So. 2d 99 La. 1987
State v. Puerto 513 So. 2d 320 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Narcisse 512 So. 2d 565 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Taylor 502 So. 2d 537 La. 1987
Following the state's request for reconsideration (rehearing), oral arguments and a full opinion, on March 27, 1986, we granted a rehearing and consolidated the case with *539 State v. Green, [ (La.
State v. Montgomery 499 So. 2d 709 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986