Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Martin, 539 So. 2d 1235.

74 citing documents.

Lanard Lavigne Versus State of Louisiana La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2025
State Of Louisiana v. Joey Paul Clement La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana v. Deon Ray Bartie La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
In State v. Martin, [], we upheld Martin’s conviction as a principal to negligent homicide even though it was his partner in a drag race who struck the victim’s vehicle.
State of Louisiana v. Darren Bridges La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
(holding closing arguments that referred to “smoke screen” tactics and defense as “commie pinkos” inarticulate but not improper); (holding prosecutor’s waving gruesome photo at jury and urging members to look at it if they became “
State v. Howard 258 So. 3d 66 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
537 , 169 L.Ed.2d 377 (2007) ; State v. Martin , , 1240 (La.
State v. Trung Le 243 So. 3d 637 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Martin , , 1238 (La.
State v. Leger 236 So. 3d 577 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Lee 217 So. 3d 1266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
(holding closing arguments that referred to “smoke screen” tactics and defense as “commie pinkos” inarticulate but not improper); (holding prosecutor’s waving gruesome photo at jury and urging members to look at it if they became “weak kneed” during delib
State v. Franklin 198 So. 3d 1222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
(holding closing arguments that referred - to “smoke screen” tactics and defense as “commie pinkos” inarticulate but not improper); (holding prosecutor’s waving gruesome photo at jury and urging members to look at it if they became “weak kneed” during del
State v. Dabney 176 So. 3d 515 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See, (finding that State’s reference in closing argument to defense “smoke screen” tactics was not improper).
State v. Flores 167 So. 3d 801 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
the Louisiana Supreme Court held that references to a “smoke screen” by a prosecutor during closing argument, while undesirable, did not rise to the level of prejudice necessary to constitute reversible error.
State v. Smith 156 So. 3d 1227 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Rather than requiring the accused to intend some consequence of his actions, criminal negligence is found from the accused’s gross disregard for the consequences of his action.” *1233 By contrast, Louisiana jurisprudence interprets the felony murder rule to require that a direct act of defendant cause the death of the victim.
State v. Simms 143 So. 3d 1258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
(citing State v. Casey, 99-0023, p. 17 (La.1/26/00), , 1036 ) (closing arguments that referred to “smoke screen” tactics and defense as “commie pinkos” were deemed inarticulate but not improper).
State v. Haynes 144 So. 3d 1083 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
104 , 148 L.Ed.2d 62 (2000), (closing argument that referred to “smoke screen” tactics and defense as “commie pinkos” was inarticulate but not improper).
State v. Williams 137 So. 3d 832 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Norah 131 So. 3d 172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Allen 126 So. 3d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Lawrence 120 So. 3d 812 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
(closing arguments referring to “smoke screen” tactics and defense “commipinkos” held inarticulate but not improper); (prosecutor’s waving a gruesome photo at jury and urging jury to look at it if they become “weak kneed” during deliberations held not imp
State v. Jackson 115 So. 3d 1155 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
For instance, in State v. Martin, *1167 the Louisiana Supreme Court held that |20closing argument referring to “smoke screen” tactics by the defense was not improper.
State v. Cleveland 115 So. 3d 578 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Casey, 99-0023, p. 17 (La.1/26/00), , (closing arguments that referred to “smoke screen” tactics and defense as “commie pinkos” were deemed inarticulate but not improper).
State v. Smith 96 So. 3d 678 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Everett 96 So. 3d 605 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Casey, 99-0023, p. 17 (La.1/26/00)
State v. Ruffin 82 So. 3d 497 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Casey, 99-0023, p. 17 (La.1/26/00), , (closing arguments that referred to “smoke screen” tactics and defense as “commie pinkos” were deemed inarticulate but not improper).
State ex rel. R.V. 82 So. 3d 402 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
the Louisiana Supreme Court determined that proof that the defendant’s conduct was a proximate cause of the victims’ death was sufficient to satisfy the causality requirements.
State v. Small 78 So. 3d 825 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. Patton 68 So. 3d 1209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
(closing arguments' referring to “smoke screen” tactics and defense “commi-pinkos” held inarticulate but not improper); cert.
State v. Vincent 56 So. 3d 408 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Knight 36 So. 3d 1163 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
State v. Beason, 26,725 (La.App.
State v. Woods 16 So. 3d 1279 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
State of Louisiana v. Brian A. Verret La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
In a case involving charges of negligent homicide arising from a “drag racing” accident, the supreme court found the proper test is whether the defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the ensuing death.”
State v. Verret 9 So. 3d 1112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
In a *1115 case involving charges of negligent homicide arising from a “drag racing” accident, the supreme court found the proper test is whether the defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the ensuing death.”
State v. Jackson 11 So. 3d 524 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Casey, 99-0023, p. 17 (La.1/26/00), , 1036, (closing arguments that referred to “smoke screen” tactics and defense as “commie pinkos” were deemed inarticulate but not improper).
State v. Desoto 6 So. 3d 141 La. 2009
the conduct of a defendant driving at a high rate of speed, on a busy highway, following another vehicle very closely, was deemed a gross deviation below the standard of care and constituted gross negligence for purposes of the negligent homicide statute.
State v. Camper 996 So. 2d 571 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
State v. Casey, 99-0023, p. 17 (La.1/26/00), , (closing arguments that referred to "smoke screen" tactics and defense as "commie pinkos" were deemed inarticulate but not improper).
State v. Bellow 993 So. 2d 307 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
State v. Robbins 986 So. 2d 828 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
104 , 148 L.Ed.2d 62 (2000)
State v. Woodfork 981 So. 2d 717 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
State v. Casey, 99-0023, p. 17 (La.1/26/00), , (closing arguments that referred to "smoke screen" tactics and defense as "commie pinkos" were deemed inarticulate but not improper).
State v. Williams 977 So. 2d 160 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
State v. Casey, 99-0023, p. 17 (La.1/26/00), , (closing arguments that referred to "smoke screen" tactics and defense as "commie pinkos" were deemed inarticulate but not improper).
State v. Tensley 955 So. 2d 227 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
State v. Gourdine 946 So. 2d 277 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
the Supreme Court used the "substantial factor" standard and cited State v. Matthews, supra .
State v. Stukes 944 So. 2d 679 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
State v. Casey, 99-0023, p. 17 (La.1/26/00), , (closing arguments that referred to “smoke screen” tactics and defense as “commie pinkos” were deemed inarticulate but not improper).
State v. Riley 941 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
State v. Casey, 99-0023, p. 17 (La.1/26/00), , (closing arguments that referred to "smoke screen" tactics and defense as "commie pinkos" were deemed inarticulate but not improper).
State v. Smith 935 So. 2d 797 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
104 , 148 L.Ed.2d 62 (2000)
State v. Trackling 930 So. 2d 60 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
State v. Casey, 99-0023, p. 17 (La.1/26/00), , (closing arguments that referred to “smoke screen” tactics and defense as “commie pinkos” inarticulate but not improper).
State v. Mitchell 889 So. 2d 1257 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
104 , 148 L.Ed.2d 62 (2000)
State of Louisiana v. Matthew James Nolan La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Rather than requiring the accused intend some consequence of his actions, criminal negligence is found from the accused’s gross disregard for the consequences of his actions.”
State v. Nolan 882 So. 2d 1246 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
State v. Vance 879 So. 2d 862 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
State v. Casey, 99-0023, p. 17 (La.1/26/00)
State v. Lee 844 So. 2d 970 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
State v. Casey, 99-0023, p. 17 (La.1/26/00), , (closing arguments that referred to "smoke screen" tactics and defense as "commie pinkos" inarticulate but not improper).
State v. Clark 828 So. 2d 1173 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
State v. Casey, 99-0023, p. 17 (La.1/26/00), , (closing arguments that referred to "smoke screen" tactics and defense as "commie pinkos" were deemed inarticulate but not improper).