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. Brooks, 541 So. 2d 801.

94 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Gary Allen La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
  • State of Louisiana v. Jason Ray Craft La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
    Here the trial judge evaluated the conflicting evidence and found defendant competent to proceed.” (citation omitted).
  • State Of Louisiana v. David Brown La. 2022
    Jackson, 608 So.2d at 954-56; (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Richard Wayne Barras La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
  • State of Louisiana v. Hunter Fussell La. 2019
  • State v. Robinson 275 So. 3d 938 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
    See State v. Brooks , , 807 (La.
  • State v. Brooks 256 So. 3d 524 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
  • State v. Sandifer 249 So. 3d 142 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    State v. Brooks , , 804 (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. William Serigne & Lionel Serigne La. 2017
  • State v. Calhoun 216 So. 3d 1101 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
    The court, however, must also weigh the possibility of prejudice to the defendant against “the |17important consideration of economical and expedient use of judicial resources.” (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Robert Leroy McCoy 218 So. 3d 535 La. 2016
  • State of Louisiana v. Marcus Donte Reed 200 So. 3d 291 La. 2016
    As to the admission in penalty phase hearings of unrelated and unadjudicated crimes evidence to prove the defendant’s character and propensities, (La.
  • State v. Lundy 195 So. 3d 587 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    confession.”); (finding that defendant’s claim of mental deficiency did not prevent admission of his confession as diminished mental or intellectual capacity alone does not impair the ability to knowingly and intelligently waive constitutional rights); and State v. Tart, 93-0772, at p. 23 (La.2/9/96), 1
  • State of Louisiana v. Robert Glen Coleman 188 So. 3d 174 La. 2016
    we held that before the state can introduce evidence of unrelated and unadjudicated criminal conduct in the penalty phase, the trial judge must determine that: (1) the evidence of the defendant’s commission of the unrelated criminal conduct is clear and convincing; (2) the proffered evidence is otherwise
  • State of Louisiana v. Lamondre Tucker 181 So. 3d 590 La. 2015
  • State v. Tucker 170 So. 3d 394 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State v. Robinson 163 So. 3d 829 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
  • State v. Roe 151 So. 3d 838 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    State v. Cooper, 12-0174, p. 10 (La.App.
  • State v. York 121 So. 3d 1226 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
  • State v. Barnes 100 So. 3d 926 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    This Court interpreted Huddleston in Brooks I and stated that the federal standard was “a mere preponderance of the evidence.” (citing to Huddleston).
  • State of Louisiana v. Terry L. Cooley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    the supreme court discussed the grounds for a motion to sever, stating: The motion to sever is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court[,] and the court’s ruling should not be disturbed on appeal absent a sho
  • State v. Cooley 87 So. 3d 285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    the supreme court discussed the grounds for a motion to sever, stating: The motion to sever is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court[,] and the court’s ruling should not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of an [nabuse of discretion.
  • State v. Ruffin 82 So. 3d 497 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    State v. Deruise, 1998-0541, p. 8 (La.4/3/01)
  • State v. Odenbaugh 82 So. 3d 215 La. 2011
  • State of Louisiana v. Joseph Michael Elie, III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    the supreme court discussed the grounds for a motion to sever, stating: The motion to sever is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court[,] and the court‘s ruling should not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of an abuse of
  • State v. Elie 74 So. 3d 1216 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    the supreme court discussed the grounds for a motion to sever, stating: The motion to sever is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court[,] and the court’s ruling should not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of an abuse of discretion.
  • State of Louisiana v. H. A., Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    the supreme court discussed the grounds for a motion to sever, stating: The motion to sever is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court[,] and the court’s ruling should not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of an abuse of discretion.
  • State v. HA, SR. 47 So. 3d 34 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    the supreme court discussed the grounds for a motion to sever, stating: The motion to sever is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court[,] and the court’s ruling should not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of an abuse of discretion.
  • State v. Holmes 5 So. 3d 42 La. 2008
  • State v. Gauthier 978 So. 2d 1161 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    State v. Brooks, [ ] supra; State v. Narcisse, [ ] supra; (La.App.
  • State v. Montejo 974 So. 2d 1238 La. 2008
  • State v. Horton 962 So. 2d 459 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
  • State of Louisiana v. Paul Roberts, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
  • State v. Draughn 950 So. 2d 583 La. 2007
    Jackson, 608 So.2d at 955
  • State v. Roberts 947 So. 2d 208 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
  • State v. Henderson 945 So. 2d 194 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    State v. Deruise, supra; (La.
  • State v. Turner 936 So. 2d 89 La. 2006
  • State v. Cunningham 903 So. 2d 1110 La. 2005
  • State v. Citizen 898 So. 2d 325 La. 2005
    State v. Fleury, 01-0871 (La.10/16/01)
  • State v. JTS 865 So. 2d 1032 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
  • State of Louisiana v. J.T.S. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
  • State v. J.T.S. 865 So. 2d 1032 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
  • State v. Lee 844 So. 2d 970 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
  • State v. Williams 841 So. 2d 936 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
  • State v. Pugh 831 So. 2d 341 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
  • State v. Palermo 818 So. 2d 745 La. 2002
  • State v. Weaver 805 So. 2d 166 La. 2002
  • State v. Bell 796 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
  • State v. Deruise 802 So. 2d 1224 La. 2001
    (finding that the offenses charged, two counts of first degree murder, were properly joined because the counts were of the same character, the penalty for each offense was either death or life imprisonment, and each required the same mode of trial, a jury of twelve jurors, all of whom must concur in ord
  • State v. Morris 770 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000