Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Hall, 616 So. 2d 664.

55 citing documents.

Lanard Lavigne Versus State of Louisiana La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2025
The district court correctly ruled that all of these claims were 20 (La.
State Of Louisiana v. David H. Brown (Parish of Lafourche) Convictions Affirmed; Death Sentences Reversed; Case Remanded For … La. 2021
State of Louisiana v. Cassetti Dewayne Brown, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
art. 786, the scope of voir dire “shall be within the discretion of the court.” As the supreme court has previously held: The scope of examination lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, [-69 (La.1993)]; and reviewing courts owe a district judge’s determinations on the scope of voir dire great deference and may not disturb them in the absen
State of Louisiana v. Emile Richard -Aka- Emile Joseph Richard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
State of Louisiana v. Colby James Kinsey A/K/A Colby J. Kinsey La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
State of Louisiana v. Lee Turner, Jr. 263 So. 3d 337 La. 2018
rtial and follow the law, answered in the affirmative, “this [C]ourt has rejected the contention that unjustified restrictions on voir dire can be cured by a response on the part of a prospective juror that he will follow the law as given to him by the judge when the juror is unaware of the complexity of the law and where that law involves such a basic right of the defendant.” (citing State v. Lee, 559 So.
State v. Hunter 224 So. 3d 976 La. 2017
4 Cir. 09/01/17) , — So.3d — ().
State of Louisiana v. Jeffrey Clark 220 So. 3d 583 La. 2016
5/23/94), (also providing that the trial judge is afforded great discretion in determining whether cause has been shown to justify removal of a prospective juror); (La.
State of Louisiana v. Robert Glen Coleman 188 So. 3d 174 La. 2016
2d 1098, Louisiana Supreme Court 2002 Louisiana Supreme Court 1993.
State v. Watkins 146 So. 3d 294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Hankton 140 So. 3d 398 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State of Louisiana v. Tyrone Mitchell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Stacy, supra, 680 So.2d at 1178
State v. Mitchell 125 So. 3d 586 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Stacy, supra, 680 So.2d at 1178
State v. Carter 128 So. 3d 1108 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
in which the Louisiana Supreme Court found that the trial court had abused its discretion when it restricted “defense counsel’s examination on issues of law, such as elements of the offense, reasonable doubt and specific intent.” Id., 616 So.2d at 669 .
State v. Henry 124 So. 3d 1108 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Williams 119 So. 3d 131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Williams 101 So. 3d 104 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Parker 76 So. 3d 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Jacobs 13 So. 3d 677 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Johnson 2 So. 3d 606 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
State v. Holmes 5 So. 3d 42 La. 2008
State v. Anderson 996 So. 2d 973 La. 2008
State v. Lee, 93-2810, p. 9 (La.5/23/94), , 108 *998 (trial judge is afforded great discretion in determining whether cause has been shown to reject a prospective juror); (La.
State of Louisiana v. Kearney Alsandor La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Carmouche, 2001-0405 p. 20, 872 So.2d at 1035
State v. ALSANDOR 970 So. 2d 113 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Carmouche , XXXX-XXXX p. 20, 872 So.2d at 1035
State v. Weary 931 So. 2d 297 La. 2006
Carmouche , XXXX-XXXX p. 20, 872 So.2d at 1035
State v. Scott 921 So. 2d 904 La. 2006
State v. Price 917 So. 2d 1201 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
State v. White 907 So. 2d 228 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
P. art. 786; Ball, supra
State v. Harris 892 So. 2d 1238 La. 2005
328 , 112 L.Ed.2d 339 (1991))(life); State v. Brooks, 92-3331 (La.1/17/95), (rev'd)(life); State v. Hall, 92-0362 (La.4/12/93), (rev'd)(manslaughter); State v. Landry, 97-0499 (La.6/29/99), (rev'd)(life); State v. Cousin, 96-2973 (La.4/14/98), (rev'd)(nolle prosequi); State v. Bright, 98-0398 (La.4/11/00), (rev'd)(life); (aff'd), rev'd post-conviction, 02-036
State v. Carmouche 872 So. 2d 1020 La. 2003
State v. Tate 851 So. 2d 921 La. 2003
State v. Lee, 93-2810, p. 9 (La.5/23/94)
State v. Royal 807 So. 2d 962 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
State v. Allen 800 So. 2d 378 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Taylor, 93-2201, p. 23 (La.2/28/96), , State v. Searles, 94-0190, p. 3 (La.App.
State v. Shaw 785 So. 2d 34 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Tilley 767 So. 2d 6 La. 2000
State v. Stacy, supra, 680 So.2d at 1178
State v. Thibodeaux 750 So. 2d 916 La. 1999
art. 786; State v. Maxie, 93-2158 (La.4/10/95); -35 ; -69 (La.1993); (La.
State v. Frost 727 So. 2d 417 La. 1998
State v. Stacy, supra, 680 So.2d at 1178
State v. Brumfield 737 So. 2d 660 La. 1998
State v. Washington 716 So. 2d 936 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
State v. Washington 716 So. 2d 936 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
State v. McCorkle 708 So. 2d 1212 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
State v. Bradford 700 So. 2d 1046 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
State v. Berry 684 So. 2d 439 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
State v. Stacy 680 So. 2d 1175 La. 1996
-669 (La.1993), this court stated the law applicable to the scope of voir dire examination: La.
State v. Roy 681 So. 2d 1230 La. 1996
art. 786; -69 (La.1993).
State v. Matthews 679 So. 2d 977 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
State v. Thomas 680 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed a conviction in a case in which the trial judge unduly limited voir dire examination.
State v. Taylor 669 So. 2d 364 La. 1996
State v. Williams, supra .
State v. Stacy 665 So. 2d 390 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
the Louisiana Supreme Court clearly and succinctly stated the law pertaining to voir dire examination: La.
State v. Francis 665 So. 2d 596 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995