Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Smith, 554 So. 2d 676.

29 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Jeffrey Clark 220 So. 3d 583 La. 2016
ndant may draw therefrom, and to the law applicable to the case” and confines the State’s rebuttal argument “to answering the argument of the defendant.” Moreover, this court has “repeatedly held that it is highly improper and prejudicial for a prosecutor' to turn his argument to the jury into a plebiscite on crime or to refer to the consequences to society of the jury’s verdict.” (La.
State v. Celestine 131 So. 3d 947 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
In State v. *957 Smith, 8 , the Court stated: [I]t has consistently been held to be reversible error for the prosecutor to express his belief in the guilt of the accused, or the credibility of a key witness, where doing so implies that he has additional knowledge or information about the case which has not been disclosed to th
State v. Allen 126 So. 3d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
the Court stated: [I]t has consistently been held to be reversible error for the prosecutor to express his belief in the guilt of the accused, or the credibility of a key witness, where doing so implies that he has additional knowledge or information about the case which has not been disclosed to the j
State v. Williams 69 So. 3d 556 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
overruled on other grounds.
State v. Davenport 978 So. 2d 1189 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
overruled on other grounds by State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), , writ denied, 519 U.S. 860 , 117 S.Ct.
State v. Frank 957 So. 2d 724 La. 2007
1997); (rev'd); State v. John Brooks, 92-3331 (La.1/17/95), (rev'd); State v. Marcus Hamilton, 92-1919 (La.9/5/96), (aff'd); State v. Derek Landry, 97-0499 (La.6/29/99), (rev'd); State v. Rogers LaCaze, 99-0584 (La.1/25/02), (aff'd); State v. Shareef Cousin
State v. Riley 941 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
In State v. Smith, *623 [2] , the Court stated: [I]t has consistently been held to be reversible error for the prosecutor to express his belief in the guilt of the accused, or the credibility of a key witness, where doing so implies that he has additional knowledge or information about the case which has not been disclosed to
State of Louisiana v. Robert S. Willis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
for the proposition that a “prosecutor cannot vouch for the credibility of a witness or use the credibility and prestige of the district attorney’s office to bolster its case.” The Defendant points out the following language from Smith, 554 So
State v. Willis 915 So. 2d 365 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
for the proposition that a "prosecutor cannot vouch for the credibility of a witness or use the credibility and prestige of the district attorney's office to bolster its case."
State v. Harris 892 So. 2d 1238 La. 2005
ife); (rev'd)(life); (aff'd), new penalty phase order by district court, review denied, 95-0262 (La.4/26/96), (life); (rev'd)(life); (rev'd)(acquitted); (rev'd)(life); (rev'd)(manslaughter); State ex rel.
State v. Smith 793 So. 2d 1199 La. 2001
which had held that this Court possessed the authority under its Rule 28 to correct substantial errors occurring in the guilt or sentencing phases of a capital trial despite the lack of a contemporaneous objection.
State v. Lucky 755 So. 2d 845 La. 1999
(citations omitted), overruled on other grounds by State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), .
State v. Wessinger 736 So. 2d 162 La. 1999
we examined the application of this "contemporaneous objection *180 rule" in death penalty cases and concluded that we would "notice all possible errors even though not properly raised," noting that "[i]n a case involving capital punishment anything less than this court's careful consideration of the entire
State v. Howard 751 So. 2d 783 La. 1999
-87 (La.1989); -35 (La.1982), later appeal, cert.
State v. Frost 727 So. 2d 417 La. 1998
Overruled State v. Sepulvado 672 So. 2d 158 La. 1996
2/28/96), , and returned to the previous standard of review in which errors not contemporaneously objected to during the guilt phase of a capital case were not reviewable on appeal, although unobjected to errors during the sentencing phase were reviewable, as mandated by La.Code Crim.P.
State v. Taylor 669 So. 2d 364 La. 1996
this Court enunciated a new and expanded rule regarding consideration of alleged errors that are not contemporaneously objected to in capital cases.
State v. Ellis 657 So. 2d 341 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
State v. Scales 655 So. 2d 1326 La. 1995
we found that a reference to additional witnesses made during the guilt phase constituted an impermissible comment on matters outside of the record.
State v. Sanders 648 So. 2d 1272 La. 1994
State v. Code 627 So. 2d 1373 La. 1993
State v. Tyler 619 So. 2d 807 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
State v. Smith 600 So. 2d 1319 La. 1992
(and cases cited therein).
State v. Sullivan 596 So. 2d 177 La. 1992
State v. Meshell 567 So. 2d 1181 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
and cases cited therein.
State v. Jackson 568 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: “We have repeatedly held that it is highly improper and prejudicial for a prosecutor to turn his argument to the jury into a plebiscite on crime or to refer to the consequences to society of the jury’s verdict, [citations omitted] Predictions as to the consequence of an a
State v. Lee 559 So. 2d 1310 La. 1990
State v. Cage 554 So. 2d 39 La. 1989
State v. Deboue 552 So. 2d 355 La. 1989