DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Adams, 550 So. 2d 595.

44 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Navarri R. Henderson La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
    App. 4 Cir. 1/27/99), ( (wherein the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed a conviction when the jury reviewed transcripts of the defendant’s confession); (La.
  • State of Louisiana Versus Isaiah Doyle La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2021
    1989), affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds, (La.
  • State v. Spruell 268 So. 3d 397 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
    State v. Perkins , supra ; State v. Zeigler , supra , citing State v. Adams , (La.
  • Reyer v. Milton Homes, LLC 272 So. 3d 604 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
    App. 1 Cir. 11/3/06) (unpublished opinion), citing State v. Adams , , 599 (La.
  • State v. Cespedes 241 So. 3d 342 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
  • State of Louisiana v. Robert Leroy McCoy 218 So. 3d 535 La. 2016
  • State of Louisiana v. Dontrelon Thomas La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
  • State v. Griffin 176 So. 3d 561 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    4th Cir.), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, ).
  • State v. Baham 151 So. 3d 698 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    (jury reviewed defendant’s confession to police); State v. Perkins, supra [ ] (conviction for first degree murder reversed based on a Brady violation and because during deliberations the jury examined the defendant’s written statement); (La.App.
  • State v. Meredith 155 So. 3d 555 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    4 Cir.), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, (1989)).
  • State v. Magee 103 So. 3d 285 La. 2012
    4 Cir.), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, (1989).
  • State v. RWW 953 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    App. 3 Cir. 11/2/05), ( -89 (La.1974) aff'd after remand, ).
  • State of Louisiana v. R.W.W. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    3 Cir. 11/2/05), ( -89 (La.1974) aff’d after remand, ).
  • State v. R.W.W. 953 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    App. 3 Cir. 11/2/05), ( -89 (La.1974) affd after remand, ).
  • State of Louisiana v. Willard Brandenburg La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    14:95.1, and one count of aggravated 1 We note that the Louisiana Supreme Court granted a writ in this case at and that the judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part at
  • State v. Brandenburg 949 So. 2d 625 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    NOTES [1] We note that the Louisiana Supreme Court granted a writ in this case at and that the judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part at
  • State v. Zeigler 920 So. 2d 949 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    [5] (jury reviewed defendant's confession to police); State v. Perkins, supra (conviction for first degree murder reversed based on a Brady violation and because during deliberations the jury examined the defendant's written statement); (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. Justin Savoy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    State v. 8 Freetime, appeal after remand
  • State v. Savoy 916 So. 2d 339 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
  • State v. Brooks 838 So. 2d 725 La. 2003
    *728 ("The general reason for the prohibition is a fear that jurors might give undue weight to the limited portion of the verbal testimony thus brought into the room with them.")(internal quotation marks and citation omitted)(emphasis added).
  • State v. Nightengale 818 So. 2d 819 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
  • State v. Sellers 818 So. 2d 231 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
  • State v. Brooks 781 So. 2d 1266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
  • State v. Brooks 777 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
    the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that the "trial judge has no discretion to make exceptions" to the statutory prohibitions of LSA-C.Cr.P.
  • State v. McCullough 774 So. 2d 1105 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
  • State v. Johnson 726 So. 2d 1126 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    (jury reviewed defendant's confession to police); State v. Perkins, supra (conviction for first degree murder reversed based on a Brady violation and because during deliberations the jury examined the defendant's written statement); (La.App.
  • State v. Jordan 719 So. 2d 556 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    4th Cir. 1989), reversed on other grounds
  • State v. Rodrique 714 So. 2d 203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    (Dennis, J., concurring) (“[t]he failure to allow a formal proffer may constitute harmless error where the nature of the evidence not admitted is otherwise sufficiently indicated, since the purpose *210 of a proffer is to inform the trial and appellate courts of the nature of that evidence.”) This assig
  • State v. Batiste 708 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    App. 4th Cir.1989), writ granted, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds, (La.App.
  • State v. Rodriguez 703 So. 2d 803 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    appeal after remand, (La.App.
  • State v. Armstrong 683 So. 2d 1261 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
  • State v. Goodwin 640 So. 2d 890 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    4th Cir. 1989), reversed on other grounds
  • State v. Larpenteur 636 So. 2d 1103 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    4th Cir.1989), reversed on other grounds
  • State v. Searcy 621 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    writ granted, , affirmed in part, reversed in part, .
  • State v. Gantt 616 So. 2d 1300 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    4th Cir.1989) writ granted, affirmed in part, reversed in part
  • Distinguished State v. Lewis 611 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    The defendant argues, however, that there needs to be a clear and express waiver of article 793
  • State v. Adams 609 So. 2d 894 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
  • State v. Broussard 598 So. 2d 1302 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
  • State v. Hammons 597 So. 2d 990 La. 1992
  • State v. Lewis 590 So. 2d 1266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    [2] -99 (La.1989); State v. Perkins, 423 So.2d at 1109-1110 .
  • Twin City Pontiac, Inc. v. Pickett 588 So. 2d 1125 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
    modified on other grounds, (La.App.
  • State v. Video Joe, Inc. 578 So. 2d 182 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    596 n. 2 (La.1989); , 974 n. 1 (La.App.3rd Cir.), writ denied
  • State v. Moore 569 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    the trial court did not allow testimony from a newspaper reporter who heard inculpatory statements made in the hall outside the courtroom by a person whose charges had been nolle prosequied.
  • State v. Stanfield 562 So. 2d 969 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990