Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Sanders, 648 So. 2d 1272.

168 citing documents.

State of Louisiana Versus Cornell Bolden La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana v. Terrence Armstrong A/K/A Terrance Armstrong A/K/A Dugga La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana Versus Jerman Neveaux La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
State Of Louisiana v. Ladarious Brown La. 2022
State Of Louisiana v. David Brown La. 2022
State Of Louisiana v. David H. Brown (Parish of Lafourche) Convictions Affirmed; Death Sentences Reversed; Case Remanded For … La. 2021
11/30/94), (“[T]he ‘single attitude’ of opposition to the death penalty ‘does not represent the kind of religious characteristic that underlies those groups that have been recognized as being distinctive.’”) (inte rnal ellipsis omitted) ( (La.
State Of Louisiana v. Jerome Gray La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
State of Louisiana v. Alan J Boner Jr La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
State of Louisiana v. Emile Richard -Aka- Emile Joseph Richard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
State v. Carmouche, 2001-0405 (La.5/14/02), State v. Sanders, 93-0001 La.11/30/94)
State Of Louisiana v. Chaddrick Piper La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
State of Louisiana v. Elvin Bryant Jinks, Jr. -Aka- Elvin Jinks La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
See State v. Everidge, 96-2665, p. 8 (La.12/2/97), (“A reviewing court must find beyond a reasonable doubt that excluded evidence could not have affected the jury’s verdict for the error to be harmless.”) (citing State v. Sanders, 93-0001, p. 25 (La.11/20/94), ).
State v. Jinks 267 So. 3d 688 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
) (citing State v. Sanders, 93-0001, p. 25 (La.11/20[30]/94), , 1291 ).
State v. Mullen 269 So. 3d 772 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
11/30/94), , 1288-89, cert.
State of Louisiana v. Lee Turner, Jr. 263 So. 3d 337 La. 2018
11/30/94), (“[T]he ‘single attitude’ of opposition to the death penalty ‘does not represent the kind of religious characteristic that underlies those groups that have been recognized as being distinctive.’”) (internal ellipses omitted) (quoting State v. Lowenfield, 495 So.
State v. Lampley 265 So. 3d 799 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
11/30/94), , 1284, cert.
State v. Dressner 255 So. 3d 537 La. 2018
State v. Reeves 254 So. 3d 665 La. 2018
State v. Vogel 261 So. 3d 801 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Broadway 252 So. 3d 878 La. 2018
State of Louisiana v. Raymond Daniel Lowrey La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
State v. Lowrey 228 So. 3d 779 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Nathaniel McCoy, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
State v. Sanders, 93-0001, p. 14 (La.11/30/94), ()
State v. McCoy 219 So. 3d 538 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Sanders, 93- 0001, p. 14 (La.11/30/94), ()
State v. Lee 217 So. 3d 1266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Jeffrey Clark 220 So. 3d 583 La. 2016
11/30/94), (“[T]he ‘single attitude’ of opposition to the death penalty ‘does not represent the kind of ...
State v. Wilson 207 So. 3d 1196 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2016
State v. Murphy 206 So. 3d 219 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State of Louisiana v. Robert Leroy McCoy 218 So. 3d 535 La. 2016
State of Louisiana v. Marcus Donte Reed 200 So. 3d 291 La. 2016
State v. Cosey 194 So. 3d 602 La. 2016
uncovered mitigating evidence,” and that failing to put on the available mitigating evidence “was not a tactical decision but reflects a failure by counsel to advocate for his client’s cause,” which resulted in "actual prejudice.” State v. Hamilton, 92-2639, p. 6 (La.7/1/97), (citing State v. Brooks, 94-2438 (La.10/16/95), ; State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), ).
State of Louisiana v. Asa Bentley AKA - Asa N. Bentley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
The standard by which this Court determines whether improper closing argument constitutes reversible error is whether it is “firmly convinced that the jury was influenced by the remarks and that they contributed to the verdict.” State v. Sanders, 93–0001 p. 16–17 (La.11/30/94), –86, cert.
State v. Bentley 182 So. 3d 1269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
The standard by which this Court determines whether improper closing argument constitutes reversible error is whether it is “firmly convinced that the jury was influenced by the remarks and that they contributed to the verdict.” State v. Sanders, 93-0001 p. 16-17 (La.11/30/94), -86 , cert.
State v. Johnson 182 So. 3d 378 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
In State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), , the court noted: *388 However, the state did not file its notice of intent/to use inculpatory statements until the eve of trial.
State v. Tyler 181 So. 3d 678 La. 2015
client’s cause;” (3) which caused “actual prejudice.” State v. Hamilton, 92-2639, p. 6 (La.7/1/97), (citing State v. Brooks, 94-2438 (La.10/16/95), and State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), ).
State v. Paulson 177 So. 3d 360 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
entencing shown by counsel’s failure to make an opening statement, failure to present any mitigating evidence, and failure to plead for a life sentence); State v. Brooks, 94-2438, p. 9 (La.10/16/95), -39 (counsel’s failure to investigate and present easily obtainable mitigating evidence was not reasonable strategic decision); State v. Sanders, 93-0001, pp. 26-27 (La.11/30/94), -92 (during sentencing phase, counsel’s lackluster opening statement, failure to object to improper other crimes evidenc
State v. Lee 181 So. 3d 631 La. 2015
uncovered mitigating evidence;” and (2) failing to put on the available mitigating evidence “was not a tactical decision but reflects a failure by counsel to advocate for his client’s cause;” (3) which caused “actual prejudice.” State v. Hamilton, 92-2639, p. 6 (La.7/1/97), (citing State v. Brooks, 94-2438 (La.10/16/95), and State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), ).
State v. Hunter 176 So. 3d 530 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See State v. Sanders, 93-0001, p. 14 (La.11/30/94), (not every violation of pre-trial procedure, including Prieur violations, requires reversal, and a defendant must show prejudice to prevail on claim).
State v. Jenkins 172 So. 3d 27 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See also State v. Sanders, 93-0001, p. 27 (La.11/30/94), (illustrating types of errors or omissions that may qualify as ineffective assistance of counsel).
State of Louisiana v. David Caleb Fontenot La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
The standard by which this Court determines 14 whether improper closing argument constitutes reversible error is whether it is “firmly convinced that the jury was influenced by the remarks and that they contributed to the verdict.” State v. Sanders, 93- 0001 p. 16-17 (La.11/30/94), -86, cert.
State v. Fontenot 160 So. 3d 609 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
The standard by which this Court determines | ^whether improper closing argument constitutes reversible error is whether it is “firmly convinced that the jury was influenced by the remarks and that they contributed to the verdict.” State v. Sanders, 93-0001 p. 16-17 (La.11/30/94), -86 , cert.
State ex rel. Wearry v. Cain 161 So. 3d 620 La. 2015
ich] would have uncovered mitigating evidence,” and that failing to put on the available mitigating evidence “was not a tactical decision but reflects a failure by counsel to advocate for his client’s cause,” which caused Weary “actual prejudice.” Hamilton , 92-2639 at 6, 699 So.2d at 32 (citing State v. Brooks, 94-2438 *623 (La.10/16/95), ; State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), ).
State of Louisiana v. Kenneth Wayne Montgomery La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), cert.
State of Louisiana v. Mauricio Garcia Cumbrera La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Neither the Defendant seeing his estranged wife with a boyfriend, [State v.] Sanders, [93-01] [cert.
State v. Cumbrera 149 So. 3d 869 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
[[Image here]] Neither the Defendant seeing his estranged wife with a boyfriend, [State v.] Sanders, [93-01] , [cert.
State v. Magee 143 So. 3d 532 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), , 1289 n. 16, cert, denied 517 U.S. 1246 , 116 S.Ct.
State of Louisiana v. Davin Ryan Hanks La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Sanders, 93–0001, p. 14 (La.11/30/94), ()
State v. Hamdan 112 So. 3d 812 La. 2013
Relatedly, in State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), , cert.
State v. Campbell 86 So. 3d 204 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
494 , *213 169 L.Ed.2d 346 (2007); State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), , cert.
State v. Anderson 85 So. 3d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Leonard, supra; State v. Sanders, 93-0001, pp. 20-21 (La.11/30/94), -89 .
State of Louisiana v. Devonta Mitchell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
d.2d 129 (1998) (several errors at the penalty phase, including counsel’s failure to make an opening statement, to investigate and present available mental health evidence and a twelve-sentence closing argument resulted in the jury's not having benefit of relevant and admissible material, requiring a new penalty hearing); State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), -1293 (counsel’s tepid opening at the penalty phase admitting unreadiness coupled with failure to present mitigating evidence, prepare