Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Potter, 591 So. 2d 1166.

25 citing documents.

State of Louisiana Versus Reginald Bradley La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
State v. Warner 274 So. 3d 72 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
App. 4 Cir. 9/30/15), , 367 ( See also State v. Potter , (La.
State v. Dominguez 148 So. 3d 648 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Odenbaugh 82 So. 3d 215 La. 2011
-1169 (La.1991) (failure to make Batson objection waived issue on appeal); (review of improper exclusion of blacks from jury not preserved for appeal); (objection to failure to sequester jury at an earlier time waived)
State of Louisiana v. M. L. Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
consistently recognized this as the contemporaneous objection rule, noting its dual purposes: “(1) to put the trial judge on notice of the alleged irregularity so that he may cure the problem and (2) to prevent a defendant from gambling for a favorable verdict and then resorting to appeal on errors that might easily have been corrected by objection.” n. 6 (La.1991), writ denied, ().
State v. ML JR. 35 So. 3d 1183 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
rence.” Louisiana courts have consistently recognized this as the contemporaneous objection rule, noting its dual purposes: “(1) to put the trial judge on notice of the alleged irregularity so that he may cure the problem and (2) to prevent a defendant from gambling for a favorable verdict and then resorting to appeal on errors that might easily have been corrected by objection.” n. 6 (La.1991), wr it denied, ().
State of Louisiana v. Lee Vidrine La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
State v. Vidrine 9 So. 3d 1095 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State of Louisiana v. Jamie Hubbard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
consistently recognized this as the contemporaneous objection rule, noting its dual purposes: “(1) to put the trial judge on notice of the alleged irregularity so that he may cure the problem and (2) to prevent a defendant from gambling for a favorable verdict and then resorting to appeal on errors that might easily have been corrected by objection.” n. 6 (La.1991), writ denied, ().
State v. Montgomery 974 So. 2d 110 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
1488 , 149' L.Ed.2d 375 (2001)
State v. Brister 966 So. 2d 1249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
State of Louisiana v. Warren Todd Dossman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
ized this as the contemporaneous objection rule, noting its dual purposes: “(1) to put the trial judge on notice of the alleged irregularity so that he 14 may cure the problem and (2) to prevent a defendant from gambling for a favorable verdict and then resorting to appeal on errors that might easily have been corrected by objection.” n.6 (La.1991), writ denied, (La.
State v. Dossman 940 So. 2d 876 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
n. 6 (La.1991), writ denied, ().
State v. Allen 913 So. 2d 788 La. 2005
State of Louisiana v. Ricky J. Langley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
which describes the fundamental purposes of the contemporaneous objection rule as, first, to place the trial judge on notice that a problem exists and, second, to give the court a chance to correct the alleged error before it infects the entire proceeding.
State v. Langley 896 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
which describes the fundamental purposes of the contemporaneous objection rule as, first, to place the trial judge on notice that a problem exists and, second, to give the court a chance to correct the alleged error before it infects the entire proceeding.
State v. Richardson 811 So. 2d 154 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
and other cases cited therein.
State v. Tilley 767 So. 2d 6 La. 2000
State v. Wessinger 736 So. 2d 162 La. 1999
State v. Snyder 750 So. 2d 832 La. 1999
(failure to make Batson objection waived issue on appeal); (review of improper exclusion of blacks from jury not preserved for appeal); (objection to failure to sequester jury at an earlier time waived); State v. B
State v. President 715 So. 2d 745 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
State v. Butler 714 So. 2d 877 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
State v. Fisher 649 So. 2d 604 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
State v. Potter 612 So. 2d 953 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
State v. Potter 591 So. 2d 1390 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991