Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Johnson, 541 So. 2d 818.

96 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Reginald K. Jackson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
a prosecution for first degree murder: [W]here the evidence is insufficient to establish first degree murder under the only definition of that crime which was argued or provided to the jury, the conviction cannot be upheld based on speculation about what verdict the jury
State v. Alridge 249 So. 3d 260 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
App. 4 Cir. 1992) (citing State v. Johnson , , 822 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Marlon Frank Thomas La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Joshua X. Griffin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
To the contrary, the supreme court explained: “In every homicide case, the prosecutor is free to attempt to establish that the defendant’s conduct satisfied any or all of the definitions of first degree murder[.]” Moreover, “[a] jury is not constitutionally required to agree on a single theory to convict a defendan
State v. Griffin 217 So. 3d 484 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
To the contrary, the supreme court explained: “In every homicide case, the prosecutor is free to attempt to establish that the defendant’s conduct satisfied any or all of the definitions of first degree murder[.]” Moreover, “[a] jury is not constitutionally required to agree on a single theory to convict a defendant wh
State v. Thomas 217 So. 3d 651 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Robert Leroy McCoy 218 So. 3d 535 La. 2016
State v. Caminita 203 So. 3d 1100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Monroe 198 So. 3d 259 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
at pp. 4-5, 779 So.2d at 701 ( ).
State v. Baham 151 So. 3d 698 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
However, as this Court stated in Johnson, citing State v. [Saul] Johnson, , (La.1989), such errors may not necessitate reversal.
State v. Simms 143 So. 3d 1258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
at pp. 4-5, 779 So.2d at 701 ( ).
State of Louisiana v. Paxton Jules Trahan La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Trahan 61 So. 3d 794 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State of Louisiana v. Jonathan Edward Boyer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Boyer 56 So. 3d 1119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Hines 52 So. 3d 1120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Moser, 588 So.2d at 1247 ().
State of Louisiana v. D D La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. DD 34 So. 3d 1169 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State of Louisiana v. Kendall Paul Davis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. Davis 36 So. 3d 351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Simpkins 12 So. 3d 1021 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
11 a prosecution for first degree murder: [Wjhere the evidence is insufficient to establish first degree murder under the only definition of that crime which was argued or provided to the jury, the conviction cannot be upheld based on speculation about what verdict the jury would have returned if it had b
State of Louisiana v. Walter R. Cox, Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
ad been informed of a different statutory basis” for establishing a defendant’s guilt, and “[w]hen the prosecution chooses to limit its case in this fashion, a defendant cannot be convicted of [the offense charged] based on assumptions about what the jury would have found 10 if the prosecution had presented its case differently.”
State v. Cox 974 So. 2d 891 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. Brown 968 So. 2d 766 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
State v. Theriot 963 So. 2d 1012 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
[14] State v. Lai, supra ().
State of Louisiana v. Todd Vincent Edwards La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
State v. Edwards 963 So. 2d 419 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
State v. Juniors 915 So. 2d 291 La. 2005
State v. Lai 902 So. 2d 550 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Pendelton, 783 So.2d at 464 .
State v. Harris 892 So. 2d 1238 La. 2005
); (rev'd)(life); (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. Bonner 895 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
the prosecutor made a more general comment that "nobody" came forward and took the stand for the defense.
State v. Cowart 862 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State v. Taylor 855 So. 2d 958 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
State v. Small 850 So. 2d 1019 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
State v. White 850 So. 2d 751 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
State v. Shed 828 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
The state argues that the comment was indirect only and thus the proper standard of review is its “intended effect on the jury.”
State v. Shed 828 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
State v. Rodriguez 822 So. 2d 121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Moser, 588 So.2d at 1247
State v. Bridgewater 823 So. 2d 877 La. 2002
State v. Sellers 818 So. 2d 231 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
State v. Bowie 813 So. 2d 377 La. 2002
3/4/ 98), , nevertheless, there is no conduct or behavior of the defendant's which supports the finding.
State v. LaCaze 824 So. 2d 1063 La. 2002
State v. Robertson, 97-0177, pp. 44-45 (La.3/4/98)
State v. Mims 806 So. 2d 760 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Ballay 800 So. 2d 953 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Mitchell, 2000-13 (La.2/21/01); ; ().
State v. Wright 796 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Pendelton 783 So. 2d 459 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Mitchell 779 So. 2d 698 La. 2001
State v. Wesley 759 So. 2d 286 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
State v. Thomas 750 So. 2d 1114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
State v. Plaisance 745 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999