Cited by

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

168 citing documents.

State v. Carmouche 872 So. 2d 1020 La. 2003
See generally State v. Sanders, 93-0001, pp. 20-21 (La.11/30/94), -89 .
State v. Clark 851 So. 2d 1055 La. 2003
Wessinger , 98-1234 at p. 24, 736 So.2d at 183 ; State v. Sanders, 93-0001,32 pp. 20-21 (La.11/30/94)
State v. Enclard 850 So. 2d 845 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), , cert.
State v. Hamilton 845 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
See State v. Sanders, 93-0001, p. 21 (La.11/30/94), -89 , cert.
State v. Quiambao 833 So. 2d 1103 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), , cert.
State v. Collins 833 So. 2d 476 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), .
State v. Nguyen 827 So. 2d 1248 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
Additionally, two more recent cases, State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94); , cert.
State v. Ducre 827 So. 2d 1120 La. 2002
State v. Sanders, 93-0001, pp. 20-21 (La.11/30/94), -89 ; (La.
State v. Louviere 833 So. 2d 885 La. 2002
The state's Sentence Review Memorandum reveals that since 1976 jurors in the 32nd Judicial District have returned a guilty verdict in 14 capital cases and recommended the death penalty only one time before the instant case in State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), .
State v. Collins 826 So. 2d 598 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
(citing State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), .
State v. Karam 834 So. 2d 1003 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
State v. Sanders, 93-0001, p. 9 (La.11/30/94); , cert.
State v. Harry 823 So. 2d 987 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Indeed, as the state argues, the Louisiana Supreme *996 Court held that similar statements were improper argument, yet found this insufficient to support reversal because it did not contribute to the verdict.
State v. Bridgewater 823 So. 2d 877 La. 2002
[22] State v. Sanders , 93-0001 at pp. 20-21 (La.11/30/94), -89 ; (La.
State v. Nightengale 818 So. 2d 819 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), , cert.
State v. Harris 812 So. 2d 612 La. 2002
State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), , cert.
State v. LaCaze 824 So. 2d 1063 La. 2002
[35] State v. Hamilton, 92-2639 (La.7/1/97), -35 (counsel's penalty phase errors, including no opening statement, failure to investigate and present available mental health evidence and a twelve-sentence closing argument, require new penalty hearing); -1293 (La.1994)(counsel's tepid penalty phase opening admitting unreadiness coupled with failure to present mitigating evidence, prepare witnesses, object to inadmissible unadjudicated other crimes evidence and make a closing argument requires new
State v. Irish 807 So. 2d 208 La. 2002
State v. Deal, supra (expert's "testimony regarding the defendant's intent was merely stating the obvious"); (emphasis in original); State v. Sanders, 93-0001, p. 18 (La.11/30/94), -1287 ; -1385 (La.1993).
State v. Maise 805 So. 2d 1141 La. 2002
State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), .
State v. Noil 807 So. 2d 295 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Deal 802 So. 2d 1254 La. 2001
824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), -1287 , cert.
State v. Lee 787 So. 2d 1020 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
*1035 See State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), , cert.
State v. Broaden 780 So. 2d 349 La. 2001
State v. Wessinger, 98-1234 (La.5/28/99), ; State v. Baldwin, 96-1660 (La.12/12/97), ; State v. Ortiz, 96-1609 (La.10/21/97), ; State v. Tart, 93-0772 (La.2/9/96), ; State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), ; State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94)
State v. Williams 778 So. 2d 1232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
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. Livas 808 So. 2d 415 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
See State v. Sanders, 93-0001, p. 14 (La.11/30/94); .
State v. Naquin 769 So. 2d 1170 La. 2000
I]t is the nature of judicial review that precludes [a court] from simply fishing one case from the stream of appellate review, using it as a vehicle for pronouncing new constitutional standards, and then permitting a stream of similar cases subsequently to flow by unaffected by that new rule.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); State v. Sanders, 93-0001, p. 22 n. 15 (La.11/30/94), ("[S]ince Griffith , the Court has almost always applied the rule of Griffith to new state rules, at
State v. Miller 776 So. 2d 396 La. 2000
1070 , 140 L.Ed.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 evid
State v. Owunta 761 So. 2d 528 La. 2000
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. Collor 762 So. 2d 96 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. Sanders, 93-0001, p. 18-19 (La.11/30/94), , cert.
State v. Hoffman 768 So. 2d 542 La. 2000
State v. Sanders, 93-0001, pp. 25-26 (La.11/30/94), .
State v. Maise 759 So. 2d 884 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), .
State v. Penns 758 So. 2d 776 La. 1999
See State v. Sanders, 93-0001, p. 7 (La.11/30/94), ("[L]ower federal court decisions do not bind this court's interpretations of federal constitutional law."); State v. Dees, 252 La.
State v. Hamilton 747 So. 2d 164 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94); , cert.
State v. Schwehm 754 So. 2d 264 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
1st Cir.11/30/94); , cert.
State v. Zeno 742 So. 2d 699 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
2252 , 132 L.Ed.2d 260 (1995); State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), , cert.
State v. Edwards 750 So. 2d 893 La. 1999
State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), , cert.
State v. Hampton 750 So. 2d 867 La. 1999
State v. Byrne, 483 So.2d at 572 ; State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94); -1286 .
State v. Wessinger 736 So. 2d 162 La. 1999
As we held in State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), , this argument fails for two reasons: First, [defendant] has not even argued (much less shown) that the alleged discrimination the two jurors suffered actually constitutes religious discrimination.
State v. Snyder 750 So. 2d 832 La. 1999
lled his estranged wife and the three men with her at the time); State v. Tart, 93-0772 (La.2/9/96), (affirming death penalty where jury found aggravating circumstance that defendant knowingly creating risk of death or great bodily harm to more than one person where defendant murdered his estranged girlfriend and severely wounded her mother); State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), (Defendant killed estranged wife and her new boyfriend, affirmed death penalty based on aggravating factor that de
State v. Bishop 734 So. 2d 674 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
Regarding the scope of our review of trial court rulings on motions for mistrial, a "[m]istrial is a drastic remedy generally and the determination `of whether prejudice has resulted lies in the sound *679 discretion of the trial judge.'" State v. Banks, 96-2227, p. 2 (La.4/18/97); (quoting State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94); , cert.
State v. Jackson 734 So. 2d 658 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
State v. Johnson 728 So. 2d 901 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), , cert.
State v. Frost 727 So. 2d 417 La. 1998
State v. Sanders, 93-0001 p. 16-17 (La.11/30/94), -86 , cert.
State v. Jackson 724 So. 2d 215 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
State v. Sanders, 93-0001, p. 9 (La.11/30/94), , cert.
State v. McArthur 719 So. 2d 1037 La. 1998
2078 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993); State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), .
State v. Wafer 719 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
In State v. Sanders, 93-0001, pp. 16-17 (La.11/30/94), -1286 , cert.
State v. Tyler 723 So. 2d 939 La. 1998
2078 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993); State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94); , cert.
State v. Tolbert 716 So. 2d 949 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
In State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), -1286 , cert.
State v. Schwehm 713 So. 2d 697 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
State v. Sanders, 93-0001, p. 25 (La.11/30/94); .
State v. Robertson 712 So. 2d 8 La. 1998
In State v. Sanders, 93-0001, p. 20 (La.11/30/94), , cert.
State v. Everidge 702 So. 2d 680 La. 1997
State v. Sanders, 93-0001(La.11/20/94), .