Cited by

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

257 citing documents.

State v. Richardson 729 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Sullivan 729 So. 2d 1101 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Flanagan 724 So. 2d 817 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
State v. Spradley 722 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
State v. Baker 720 So. 2d 767 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
State v. Causey 721 So. 2d 78 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Ann. art. 465 A(31); overruled on other grounds in State v. Comeaux, 93-2729 (La.7/1/97), .
State v. Brumfield 737 So. 2d 660 La. 1998
Cf. State v. Bourque, 92-0968 (La.7/1/93), (holding that the defendant, before being entitled to relief, must show prejudice resulting from the state's failure to comply with discovery procedure).
State v. Guidroz 721 So. 2d 480 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
State v. Hankton 719 So. 2d 546 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
1796 , 108 L.Ed.2d 798 (1990); reversed on other unrelated grounds, State v. Comeaux, 93-2729 (La.7/1/97), .
State v. Letulier 750 So. 2d 784 La. 1998
In defendant's view, by presenting the testimony of Linda Badon, "who related the gruesome details of the horrible crime perpetrated upon her by the defendant," after having previously elicited the details of this crime through the testimony of the investigating officers, the state injected a cumulative and arbitrary *791
State v. Langley 711 So. 2d 651 La. 1998
State v. Hebert 716 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
In State v. Bourque [1] , the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth the law concerning admission of graphic postmortem photographs.
State v. Williams 708 So. 2d 703 La. 1998
rev'd on other grounds by, State v. Comeaux, 93-2729 (La.7/1/97), , when determining whether or not a juror should be dismissed for cause, the trial judge should consider the potential juror's answers as a whole and not merely consider "correct" answers in isolation.
State v. Bailey 713 So. 2d 588 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
speaking on the standard of review of a trial court's denial of a motion for continuance, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated as follows: "The granting or refusal of a motion for a continuance rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge."
State v. Ward 712 So. 2d 139 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
State v. Bowman, 95-0667 (La.App.
State v. Taylor 709 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
State v. Arvie 709 So. 2d 810 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
[3] the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: A defendant relies on the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution to protect his right against self-incrimination by forbidding the prosecution to comment on the defendant's failure to take the stand.
State v. Hammond 706 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
State v. Martin, 645 So.2d at 754 .
State v. Mattox 704 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
State v. Hongo 706 So. 2d 419 La. 1997
at 2081 ; , 241 n. 20 (La.1993)(citing Sullivan ).
State v. Labostrie 702 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
State v. McArthur 702 So. 2d 1047 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
State v. Pardon 703 So. 2d 50 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
State v. Bullard 700 So. 2d 1051 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
our Supreme Court stated: The law is clear that when the state seeks to introduce a confession or statement of the defendant which contains other crimes evidence, the defendant has two options.
State v. Brown 702 So. 2d 744 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
State v. Reeder 698 So. 2d 56 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
In support, where the Court discussed the problem of a confession which referred to other crimes not admissible at trial.
State v. Comeaux 699 So. 2d 16 La. 1997
*21 Applying the limitations of Jackson , held that evidence of an unrelated and unadjudicated killing, committed one hour before the murder at issue in the capital case being tried, was admissible, since it was relevant evidence of Bourque's character and propensities and fell within Jackson 's limitations.
State v. Bourque 699 So. 2d 1 La. 1997
State v. Connolly 700 So. 2d 810 La. 1997
State v. Amato 698 So. 2d 972 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
State v. Johnson 697 So. 2d 288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
State v. Hebert 697 So. 2d 1040 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
State v. Pendelton 696 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
State v. Glynn, 94-0332 (La.App.
State v. Kennerson 695 So. 2d 1367 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
State v. Brown 692 So. 2d 735 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
There has been much confusion regarding whether a harmless error analysis was appropriate, when such an error occurred U(see Footnotes 1 & 2 in Clay, infra., and Footnote 20 ), where the Supreme Court stated: “It is unclear whether this issue would be subject to harmless error analysis.” This court in Bowman found that the prosecutor’s comments regarding the defendant’s right to remain silent was an indirect reference and the court found that it was “not thoroughly convinced that
State v. Chisolm 691 So. 2d 251 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
State v. Hart 691 So. 2d 651 La. 1997
State v. Divers, 94-0756 (La.9/5/96), ; State v. Maxie, 93-2158 (La.4/10/95), ; State v. Robertson, 92-2660 (La.1/14/94), -81 ; -64 (La.1986).
State v. Smith 687 So. 2d 529 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
State v. Ard 686 So. 2d 1026 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
2078 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993)
State v. Henderson 684 So. 2d 1054 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
State v. Hampton 687 So. 2d 505 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
State v. Lavalais 685 So. 2d 1048 La. 1996
State v. Cousan 684 So. 2d 382 La. 1996
State v. Foret 685 So. 2d 210 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
State v. Brown, 95-124 (La.App.
State v. Berry 684 So. 2d 439 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
State v. Campbell 683 So. 2d 1302 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
-225 (La.1993), the supreme court squarely addressed the issue of group examination: There is no provision in our law which prohibits or requires the sequestration of prospective jurors for individual voir dire.
State v. Powell 683 So. 2d 1281 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
1870 , 128 L.Ed.2d 491 (1994)
State v. Strickland 683 So. 2d 218 La. 1996
State v. Timon 683 So. 2d 315 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
State v. Davis 684 So. 2d 17 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
the court stated: In order to be valid, “a search warrant may issue only upon probable cause established to the satisfaction of the judge, by the affidavit of a credible person, reciting facts establishing the cause for issuance of the warrant.” La.C.Cr.P.