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. Lewis, 557 So. 2d 980.

22 citing documents.

  • State v. Warner 137 So. 3d 715 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Cooper 120 So. 3d 844 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    4 Cir. 1/24/01) , , this Court stated: “Generally, ‘there is no prejudice and severance is not required if the facts of each offense are not complex, and there is little likelihood that the jury will be confused by the evidence of more than one crime,’ ” (La.App.
  • State v. Hugle 104 So. 3d 598 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    4 Cir. 1/24/01) , , (La.App.
  • State v. Cavazos 94 So. 3d 870 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    of offenses in a bill of information or at trial, “the court may order separate trials, grant a severance of offenses, or provide whatever other relief justice requires.” Generally, “there is no prejudice and severance is not required if the facts of each offense are not complex, and there is little likelihood that the jury will be confused by the evidence of more than one crime.” (La.App.
  • State v. Adams 68 So. 3d 1165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Generally, “there is no prejudice and severance is not required if the facts of each offense are not complex, and there is little likelihood that the jury will be confused by the evidence of more than one crime.” (La.App.
  • State v. GRAPS 42 So. 3d 1066 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Generally, “there is no prejudice and severance is not required if the facts of each offense are not complex, and there is little likelihood that the jury will be confused by the evidence of more than one crime.” (La.App.
  • State v. Lomax 35 So. 3d 396 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    4 Cir. 1/24/01) , , where this court stated: “Generally, ‘there is no prejudice and severance is not required if the facts of each offense are not complex, and there is little likelihood that the jury will be confused by the evidence of more than one crime,’ ” (La.App.
  • State v. Nix 987 So. 2d 855 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    App. 4 Cir. 1/24/01), , this Court stated: “Generally, ‘there is no prejudice and severance is not required if the facts of each offense are not complex, and there is little likelihood that the jury will be confused by the evidence of more than one crime,’ ” (LaApp.
  • State v. Lebreton 859 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    4 Cir. 1/24/01) , , (La.App.
  • State v. Simmons 848 So. 2d 58 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    4 Cir. 1/24/01) , 779 So.2d *65 125, 145, writ denied, XXXX-XXXX (La.2/11/02), ( (La.App.
  • State v. Grainer 834 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    4 Cir. 1/24/01) , , (La.App.
  • State v. Porche 819 So. 2d 1122 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    4 Cir. 1/24/01) , , (La.App.
  • State v. Singleton 801 So. 2d 1150 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
  • State v. Coston 800 So. 2d 907 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    “Generally, there is no prejudice and severance is not required if the facts of each offense are not complex, and there is little likelihood that the jury will be confused by the evidence of more than one crime.” (La.App.
  • State v. Carter 779 So. 2d 125 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
  • State v. Lee 764 So. 2d 1122 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
  • State v. Sam 761 So. 2d 72 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
  • State v. McNeil 753 So. 2d 938 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • State v. Jackson 746 So. 2d 638 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
  • State v. Johnson 706 So. 2d 468 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
  • State v. Davis 596 So. 2d 358 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
  • State ex rel. Lewis v. Smith 578 So. 2d 922 La. 1991
    Prior report: La.App., .