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 v. Iverson 855 So. 2d 835 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    at 2245 , 49 L.Ed.2d 91 [emphasis supplied]; (La.
  • State v. Price 842 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    at 2245 , 49 L.Ed.2d 91 [emphasis supplied]; (La.
  • State v. Tracy 831 So. 2d 503 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    3 Cir.1986), writ granted, affd, (La.App.
  • State v. Steele 829 So. 2d 541 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
  • State v. Marcotte 817 So. 2d 1245 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    1 Cir. 4/8/94) , , writ denied, 94-1211 (La.9/23/94), arguing that it is improper for the State to impeach him with his post-arrest silence.
  • State v. Ledesma 817 So. 2d 390 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
  • State v. Crotwell 818 So. 2d 34 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
  • State v. Mitchell 779 So. 2d 698 La. 2001
    State v. Taylor, 93-2201 p. 7 (La.2/28/96), -69 ( cert.
  • State v. Reese 774 So. 2d 1164 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    art. 841(an error cannot be considered on appeal unless an *1173 objection was made at the time of its occurrence)
  • State v. Jackson 768 So. 2d 767 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
  • State v. Young 757 So. 2d 797 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    (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 [ State v. ]Belgard
  • State v. Norman 756 So. 2d 525 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
  • State v. Grant 761 So. 2d 10 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • State v. Wessinger 736 So. 2d 162 La. 1999
  • State v. Varnado 737 So. 2d 240 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    at 2245 , 49 L.Ed.2d 91 [emphasis supplied]; (La.
  • State v. Howard 751 So. 2d 783 La. 1999
    (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 v. Washington 716 So. 2d 936 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    State v. Thomas, 27,507 (La.App.
  • State v. Washington 716 So. 2d 936 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    State v. Thomas, 27,507 (La.App.
  • State v. Goodwin 703 So. 2d 168 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    Although this rule is not absolute, -48 (La.1987), our review of the jurisprudence establishes that exceptions have been made only when a structural or fundamental error has occurred, (erroneous jury instructions).
  • State v. Taylor 669 So. 2d 364 La. 1996
    State *369 v. Arvie, cert.
  • State v. Thomas 665 So. 2d 629 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    the supreme court was again asked to consider an alleged error that occurred without contemporaneous objection.
  • State v. George 661 So. 2d 975 La. 1995
    Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. at 619 , 96 S.Ct at 2245 , 49 L.Ed.2d 91 [emphasis supplied]; wherein we stated "...
  • State v. Pyke 640 So. 2d 460 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    Although the Supreme Court did not comment on this Court's "weight of evidence" approach in deciding when to apply the Williamson exception, it reaffirmed the applicability of the exception in certain cases and particularly stated "[o]ne could hardly imagine an error which more seriously effects the fairness of a judicial proceeding or which is more prejudicial to the fundamental rights of an accused than a jury instruction which incorrectly defi
  • State v. Stelly 635 So. 2d 725 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • State v. Wilson 631 So. 2d 1213 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
  • State v. Berry 630 So. 2d 1330 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
  • State v. Porter 626 So. 2d 476 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
  • State v. Berniard 625 So. 2d 217 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
    The panel in Dobson noted: The Supreme Court has consistently rejected the `plain error' rule; where the court considered that the o
  • State v. Holmes 620 So. 2d 436 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    the supreme court once more cautioned that Williamson did not create or recognize a plain error rule of general application.
  • State v. Trackling 598 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
  • State v. Allen 592 So. 2d 486 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
  • State v. Williams 591 So. 2d 404 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
    The Supreme Court has consistently rejected the `plain error' rule; (La.
  • State v. Williams 591 So. 2d 404 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    The Supreme Court has consistently rejected the ‘plain error’ rule; where the court considered that the omiss
  • State v. Potter 591 So. 2d 1166 La. 1991
  • State v. Carter 589 So. 2d 1212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
  • State v. Jones 588 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
  • State v. Potter 578 So. 2d 528 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
  • State v. Dobson 578 So. 2d 533 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
    The Supreme Court has consistently rejected the "plain error" rule; where the court considered that the omiss
  • State v. Ebarb 558 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
  • State v. Bland 558 So. 2d 719 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
  • State v. Duplissey 550 So. 2d 590 La. 1989
  • State v. Leonard 543 So. 2d 975 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
    the court stated: "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. Keltner 542 So. 2d 42 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Jones 525 So. 2d 1149 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
  • State v. Prince 520 So. 2d 778 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Hilburn 512 So. 2d 497 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. LeBlanc 506 So. 2d 1197 La. 1987