Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Bourque, 622 So. 2d 198.

257 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. J.T.S. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
State v. J.T.S. 865 So. 2d 1032 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
State v. Matthews 859 So. 2d 863 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
State v. MacCracken 845 So. 2d 1104 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
5 Cir. 10/14/98) , , writ denied, 98-2874 (La.2/26/99), (-217 (La.1993).)
State v. Odle 834 So. 2d 483 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
State v. Dunn 831 So. 2d 862 La. 2002
State v. Cross, 93-1189, p. 6 (La.6/30/95)
State v. Hurst 828 So. 2d 1165 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
State v. Singleton 828 So. 2d 1185 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
To determine whether an error is harmless, the proper analysis is “not whether, in a trial that occurred without the error, a guilty verdict would surely have been rendered, but whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.” , 241 n. 20 (quoting Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct.
State v. Juarbe 824 So. 2d 1240 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
State v. Bridgewater 823 So. 2d 877 La. 2002
Art. 712 (providing that "[a] motion for continuance, if timely filed, may be granted, in the discretion of the court, in any case if there is good ground therefore")
State v. Dangerfield 816 So. 2d 885 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
State Ex Rel. Thibodeaux v. State 811 So. 2d 875 La. 2002
See, (a "trial judge's ruling [on a fact question], based on conclusions of credibility and weight of the testimony, is entitled to great deference...."); Ambrose v. New Orleans Police Amb.
State v. Ball 824 So. 2d 1089 La. 2002
Cross, 93-1189, p. 6, 658 So.2d at 686 ; (La.
State v. LaCaze 824 So. 2d 1063 La. 2002
State v. Howard 805 So. 2d 1247 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
art. 712; State v. Strickland, 94-0025, p. 23 (La.11/1/96), ; overruled on other grounds by State v. Comeaux, 93-2729 (La.7/1/97), .
State v. Maise 805 So. 2d 1141 La. 2002
State v. Bunley 805 So. 2d 292 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
4 Cir. 3/7/01) , , appeal after remand, 96-0842 (La.7/1/97) , cert.
State v. Evans 801 So. 2d 1205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
yder, 98-1078 p. 15 (La.4/14/99), , the Court set forth the harmless error standard: To determine whether an error is harmless, the proper analysis is “not whether, in a trial that occurred without the error, a guilty verdict would surely have been rendered, but whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.” , 241 n. 20 (quoting Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct.
State v. Offray 797 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
overruled on other grounds, State v. Comeaux, 93-2729 (La.7/1/97)
State v. MM 802 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
[52] appeal after remand, 96-842 (La.7/1/97); , cert.
State v. M.M. 802 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
appeal after remand., 96-842 (La.7/1/97); , cert.
State v. Pierre 792 So. 2d 899 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
State v. Jacobs 789 So. 2d 1280 La. 2001
State v. Sholes 782 So. 2d 691 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
appeal after remand, (La.
State v. Lowery 781 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
appeal after remand, 96-0842 (La.7/1/97), , cert.
State v. Taylor 781 So. 2d 1205 La. 2001
Robertson , 92-2660, p. 3 (La.1/14/94), 630 So.2d at 1280-1281 , (La.
State v. Eskano 779 So. 2d 148 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Givens 776 So. 2d 443 La. 2001
-17 (La.1993); -60 (La.1980) *455 The defendant's argument is that the District Attorney's Office should have been recused because four student practitioners with the Loyola Law Clinic, who had at different times represented the defendant before Mr. Smith enrolled as counsel, gra
State v. McBride 776 So. 2d 546 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
State v. Cooper 774 So. 2d 1040 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
4 Cir. 4/1/99) , , : The defendant did not present any evidence tending to show a personal interest on behalf of the entire district attorney’s office, which would threaten the fair and impartial administration of justice.
State v. George 768 So. 2d 748 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
(overruled on other grounds).
State v. Ste. Marie 770 So. 2d 315 La. 2000
State v. Coldman 769 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. Cager, 97-1877 (La.
State v. Russell 764 So. 2d 93 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. Hoffman 768 So. 2d 542 La. 2000
State v. Cross, 93-1189, at p. 6 (La.6/30/95)
State v. Anthony 776 So. 2d 376 La. 2000
State v. Cross, 93-1189, p. 6 (La.6/30/95)
State v. Hundley 760 So. 2d 417 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
overruled on other grounds by State v. Comeaux, 93-2729 (La.7/1/97)
State v. Lockett 754 So. 2d 1128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
See State v. Johnson, 94-1379 (La.11/27/95), -102 ; , 241 n. 20 (La.1993), overruled in part on other grounds, State v. Comeaux, 93-2729 (La.7/1/97), , cert.
State v. Jackson 751 So. 2d 387 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
State v. Bowman, 95-0667 (La.App.
State v. Hobley 752 So. 2d 771 La. 1999
[2] which has since been overruled by State v. Comeaux, 93-2729 (La.7/1/97), .
State v. Givens 750 So. 2d 242 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Wessinger 736 So. 2d 162 La. 1999
overruled on other grounds by State v. Comeaux, 93-2729 (La.7/1/97)
State v. Howard 751 So. 2d 783 La. 1999
State v. Cross, 93-1189 (La.6/30/95)
State v. Byes 735 So. 2d 758 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Snyder 750 So. 2d 832 La. 1999
241 n. 20 (quoting Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct.
State v. Castleberry 758 So. 2d 749 La. 1999
State v. Strickland, 94-0025 (La.11/1/96), ; (La.
State in the Interest of T.F. 732 So. 2d 125 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
for example, the district attorney’s investigator was related to the victims by marriage.
State v. Green 735 So. 2d 723 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
State v. Fairley, 25,951 (La.App.
State v. Cager 732 So. 2d 97 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Holmes 735 So. 2d 687 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999