Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Simpson, 551 So. 2d 1303.

56 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Lionel Serigne, Jr. La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
State Of Louisiana v. Landon Kyle Palmature La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana v. Jeremiah Lee Todd La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2023
State Of Louisiana v. Gary Deandre Hansome La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana v. John Honore La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
State Of Louisiana v. Christopher Thornton La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
State Of Louisiana v. Bryant Scott Tanner La. 2021
State v. Otkins-Victor 193 So. 3d 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
the seminal Louisiana case dealing with random allotment, in support of his theory.
State v. Victor 195 So. 3d 128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
the seminal Louisiana case dealing with random allotment, in support of his theory.
State of Louisiana Versus Errol Victor, Sr. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2016
State v. Nunez 174 So. 3d 105 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See, e.g.; State v. Reed, 95-0648 (La.4/28/95), (per curiam); *121 (per curiam).
State v. Brown 174 So. 3d 95 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
wherein the Supreme Court held that criminal cases must be allotted for trial “on a random or rotating basis or under some other procedure adopted by the court which does not vest the district attorney with power to choose the judge to whom a particular case is assigned.” The defendant also relies on
State v. Baker 166 So. 3d 1152 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
“To meet due process requirements, capital and other felony cases must be allotted for trial to the various divisions of the court, or to judges assigned criminal court duty, on a random or rotating basis or under some other procedure adopted by the court which does not vest the district attorney with power to choose the judge to whom a particular case is assigned.”
State v. Beene 164 So. 3d 299 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
State of Louisiana v. Robert W. Bell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER TWO Defendant argues that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to continue the trial despite the alleged untimely receipt of the court‟s list of priority cases
State v. Bell 106 So. 3d 295 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER TWO Defendant argues that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to continue the trial despite the alleged untimely receipt of the court’s list of priority cases
State v. Chapman 46 So. 3d 660 La. 2010
However, “by listing for defense counsel the cases on the criminal docket in the order in which cases are to be called for trial.” State v. Chapman, 45,717 (La.App.
Charles McKelvey, Jr. v. City of Dequincy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
3 Cir. 1989), rev’d on other grounds, (La.App.
McKelvey v. City of Dequincy 970 So. 2d 682 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
3 Cir. 1989), rev'd on other grounds, (La.App.
State v. Jones 940 So. 2d 61 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
as authority that the allegedly non-random assignment of this case to Division C rather than Division B violates her right to due process.
In Re Elloie 921 So. 2d 882 La. 2006
[21] See State v. Sprint Communications Co., L.P., 96-3094 p. 5 (La.2/7/97)
State v. Juniors 918 So. 2d 1137 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Broussard, 03-1340 (La.6/26/03)
State of Louisiana v. Glynn Juniors La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Thibodeaux 915 So. 2d 807 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Further, we also note that the transfer of this case from one division of the District Court to another, in response to a motion to recuse the district attorney, filed by the district attorney
State v. Broussard 852 So. 2d 978 La. 2003
this Court held that “[t]o meet due process requirements, capital *979 and other felony cases must be- allotted for trial to the various divisions of the court, or to judges assigned criminal court duty, on a random or rotating basis or under some other procedure adopted by the court which does not ve
State v. Prudhomme 819 So. 2d 443 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
and State v. Rideau, 01-3146 (La.11/29/01); .
State v. Langley 813 So. 2d 356 La. 2002
The district court noted that, there need be no proof of actual impropriety; instead, the issue is whether the system vests the district attorney with the power to choose the judge to whom a particular case is assigned.
State v. Plaisance 811 So. 2d 1172 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
3 Cir.1989), overruled in part on other grounds
State v. Rideau 802 So. 2d 1280 La. 2001
Attorney has the ability, by process of elimination, to know the final judge in the pool to be assigned the next numbered capital case, and because the district attorney has the right to assign the case number in capital cases when indictments are handed down
State v. Mitchell 808 So. 2d 664 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
(per curiam), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the 15th Judicial District Court criminal case allotment system, which allowed the state to choose the judge who would preside over a criminal case, violated due process.
State v. Henderson 775 So. 2d 1138 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
[5] Mr. Henderson further argues that this abuse violated his due process rights because it was used to present the case for trial by "a more sympathetic judge,"
State v. Sebastien 730 So. 2d 1040 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
State v. Riley 731 So. 2d 409 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
Instead, in support of his constitutional challenge, (La.
State v. Coleman 720 So. 2d 381 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
3 Cir.1990) in support of his argument.
State v. Thomas 683 So. 2d 1272 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
the supreme court stated that, since adequate notice is a fundamental element of due process, the criminal docket for a particular day must indicate the order in which cases are to be called for trial, and the district attorney's power under local court rules to call criminal cases for trial "in any order p
State v. Coleman 677 So. 2d 435 La. 1996
holds that “capital and other felony cases must be allotted for trial to the various divisions of the court, or to judges assigned criminal court duty, on a random or rotating basis or under some other procedure adopted by the court which does not vest the district attorney with power to choose the ju
State v. Huls 676 So. 2d 160 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
(on rehearing) (per curiam), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a criminal case allotment system which allows the state to choose the judge who presides over a criminal case violates due process.
State v. Cockerham 671 So. 2d 967 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
4th Cir.1993) this Court stated: the prosecutor is ordered to notify the indigent defense counsel within a reasonable time before trial (but not less than 48 hours) of the order in which the cases will be called for trial when more than one case is set for trial on a particular day.
State v. Busby 653 So. 2d 140 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
3rd Cir.1989), overruled on other grounds, (La.
State v. McCutcheon 633 So. 2d 1338 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
(on rehearing; per curiam), wherein the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a criminal case allotment system, which allows the state to choose the judge who presides over a criminal case, violates due process.
State v. Langley 620 So. 2d 1203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Furthermore, the arguments suggesting a are not properly before this court as the defendants who are a party to this action did not object to the state’s request to set the matters for trial.
State v. Wisinger 618 So. 2d 923 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
(per curiam), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a criminal case allotment system, which allows the state to choose the judge who presides over a criminal case, violates due process.
State v. McNeil 613 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
4 Cir. June 28, 1991) wherein this Court stated: the prosecutor is ordered to notify the indigent defense counsel within a reasonable time before trial (but not less than 48 hours) of the order in which the cases will be called for trial when more than one case is set for trial on a particular day.
State v. Claxton 603 So. 2d 247 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
(per curiam), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the 15th Judicial District Court criminal case allotment system, which allowed the state to choose the judge who would preside over a criminal case, violated due process.
State v. Jones 600 So. 2d 875 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
On the second day of trial, defendant made a motion for mistrial, arguing that Judge Marionneaux of the 18th Judicial District Court had issued, on the day before, a ruling which held that, (La.
State v. Myers 583 So. 2d 67 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
3d Cir.1989), overruled on other grounds
State v. Larson 579 So. 2d 1050 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
that cases be assigned in such a way that the prosecutor cannot choose the judge.
State v. McGuire 577 So. 2d 1120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
3d Cir.), overruled on other grounds, , 1304 n. 3 (La.1989) (defense witness could not relate hearsay conversation between defendant and the victim which occurred fifteen hours before defendant shot the victim because this conversation was not a part of the res gestae); -735 (La.App.
State v. Trahan 576 So. 2d 1 La. 1991
After the court of appeal rendered its opinion in the present case
State v. Montgomery 575 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
ible error; and (e) Other assignments of error appearing from review of the transcript of the trial; Defendant contends in his fourth assignment of error that he was denied his constitutionally protected rights to a fair trial, procedural and substantive due process, rehearing granted, amended and clarified, in that the trial judge, date of trial, and priority of the trial fixing on the day of the trial were selected by the State with reversible prejudice to defendant.