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. Arvie, 505 So. 2d 44.

97 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Keith Joseph Johnson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2026
    Knott, 05-2252 p. 2, 928 So.2d at 535
  • State of Louisiana v. Kendall D. Singleton A/K/A Kendall Singleton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2025
    10 Knott, 05-2252 p. 2, 928 So.2d at 535
  • State of Louisiana v. Jaylon K. Brown La. 2024
  • State Of Louisiana v. Eli Charpentier La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
  • State of Louisiana v. Exzavian Burnette La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
    Knott, 05-2252 p. 2, 928 So.2d at 535
  • State of Louisiana Versus Ivory D. Franklin La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
    App. 5 Cir. 2/15/05), ( (La.
  • State Of Louisiana In The Interest of D.D. La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
  • State Of Louisiana v. Torrance Verdin La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
  • State Of Louisiana v. Robert Javontie Marks La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
  • State Of Louisiana v. Dkerian Thompson La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
    Code Crim P. art. 541; ( La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Desmyne Joseph Henry La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
  • State v. Thompkins 273 So. 3d 346 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
  • State v. Hicks 258 So. 3d 1039 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    State v. Arvie , , 46 (La.
  • State v. Howard 258 So. 3d 66 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
  • State v. Sandifer 249 So. 3d 142 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    52(b)") (citing State v. Arvie , , 48 (La.
  • State v. Brazell 245 So. 3d 15 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    4/11/07), , 87 (citing State v. Arvie , , 47 (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Michael Kees La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
    the second circuit stated that, “[t]o fall under the exception, the error must cast substantial doubt, on the reliability of the fact- finding process.” Id.
  • State v. Halley 212 So. 3d 596 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    4 Cir. 3/12/97), ., “One purpose of the contemporaneous objection rule is to require counsel to call an error to the judge’s attention at a time when the judge can correct the error.” (La.
  • State v. Matthews 200 So. 3d 895 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
  • State v. Mansfield 190 So. 3d 322 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    the defendant’s failure to conterhporane-ciusly object to a Doyle violation resulted in the defendant’s conviction being upheld.
  • State v. Lensey 182 So. 3d 1059 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    the defendant’s failure to contemporaneously object to a Doyle violation resulted in the defendant’s conviction being upheld.
  • State of Louisiana v. Jaime Brooks Day La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    12/11/09), in support of her argument.
  • State v. Day 158 So. 3d 120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    2 Cir. 2/25/09), , writ denied, 09-696 (La.12/11/09), ; in support of her argument.
  • State v. Patin 150 So. 3d 435 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2014
    however, the Louisiana Supreme Court emphasized the importance of a contemporaneous objection by refusing to extend the exception to the contemporaneous objection rule for a prosecutor’s reference to the defendant’s post-arrest silence during his cross-examination.
  • State v. Wallace 143 So. 3d 1275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    art. 841 provides that “[a]n irregularity or error cannot be availed of after verdict unless it was objected to at the time of the occurrence.”
  • State v. Vallo 131 So. 3d 835 La. 2014
    art. 841 generally provides that “[a]n irregularity or error cannot be availed of after verdict unless it was objected to at the time of the occurrence.” (“One purpose of the contemporaneous objection rule is to require counsel to call an error to the judge’s attention at a time when the judge may correct the error.
  • State v. Brown 163 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Id., 05-2252 at p. 2, 928 So.2d at 535
  • State of Louisiana v. Thomas Kirk Gaton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    13 the defendant sought appellate review of the State‘s use of his post-arrest silence for impeachment purposes and had not objected to the State‘s questions that elicited the information.
  • State of Louisiana v. Demarcus W. Law La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    (on rehearing) (Williamson “should not be construed as authorizing appellate review of every alleged constitutional violation and erroneous jury instruction urged on appeal without timely objection at occurrence.”); see also Bel
  • State v. Law 110 So. 3d 1271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    (on rehearing) (Williamson “should not be construed as authorizing appellate review of every alleged constitutional violation and erroneous jury instruction urged on appeal without timely objection at occurrence.”); see also Belgard, (La.1
  • State of Louisiana v. Triston T. Lyons La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • State of Louisiana v. Kevin James Dalcourt La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • State v. Massey 71 So. 3d 367 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    State v. Norman, 99-600, pp. 7-8 (La.App.
  • State v. Robinson 63 So. 3d 1113 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    the court declined to extend the exception to the contemporaneous objection rule.
  • State v. Collins 30 So. 3d 72 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    State v. Divine, 98-812 (La.App.
  • State v. Langston 3 So. 3d 707 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
  • State v. Longo 8 So. 3d 666 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • State v. Bradley 997 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    The failure to contemporaneously object to a resulted in the conviction being upheld.
  • State v. Brown 966 So. 2d 1138 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    (on rehearing) ( Williamson "should not be construed as authorizing appellate review of every alleged constitutional violation and erroneous jury instruction urged on appeal without timely objection at occurrence."); see also Belgard, (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Robert Wayne Brown La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    (on rehearing) (Williamson “should not be construed as authorizing appellate review of every alleged constitutional violation and erroneous jury instruction urged on appeal without timely objection at occurrence.”); see also Belgard
  • State v. Ruiz 955 So. 2d 81 La. 2007
    Knott , 05-2252 p. 2, 928 So.2d at 535 ; (La.
  • State v. Allen 913 So. 2d 788 La. 2005
  • State v. Williams 902 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    State v. Ledesma, 01-1413 (La.
  • State v. Robinson 896 So. 2d 1115 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    State v. Ledesma, 01-1413 (La.App.
  • State v. Bonner 895 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
    the court explained: Thus, the prosecutor may not use the fact of an accused's exercise of his constitutional right to remain silent, after he has been advised of this right, solely to ascribe a guilty meaning to the silence or to undermine by inference an exculpatory version related by the accused for
  • State v. Jones 891 So. 2d 760 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
    at 2245 , 49 L.Ed.2d 91 [emphasis supplied]; wherein we stated ".
  • State v. Landry 876 So. 2d 146 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    The contemporaneous objection rule prevents “a defendant from gambling for a [ ¿favorable verdict and then, upon conviction, resorting to appeal on errors which either could have been avoided or corrected at the time or should have put an immediate halt to the proceedings.” State v. Taylor, 93-2201 p. 7 (La.2/28/96), -69 ().
  • State v. Torregano 875 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
    See: State v. Norman, 99-600, pgs.
  • State v. Lee 868 So. 2d 256 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
  • State v. Olivieri 860 So. 2d 207 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    State v. Ledesma, 01-1413 (La.App.