Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Taylor, 669 So. 2d 364.

179 citing documents.

Lanard Lavigne Versus State of Louisiana La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2025
2/28/96), claimed that he was entitled to a reversal on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct as a result of several allegedly improper statements made by the prosecutor during closing, including (1) invoking his personal status as a representative of the people of Louisiana; (2) making the “Angola lifestyle” argument; (
State Of Louisiana v. Robert Javontie Marks La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana v. Michael Edwin Vice La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
2/28/96), (unpub’d app’x.); State v. Tart, 94-0025, p. 55 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Victor D. Guillory A/K/A Victory Guillory La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
See State v. Taylor, 93–2201 (La.2/28/96), cert.
State Of Louisiana v. David Brown La. 2022
2/28/96), and State v. Wessinger, 98-1234 (La.
State Of Louisiana v. David H. Brown (Parish of Lafourche) Convictions Affirmed; Death Sentences Reversed; Case Remanded For … La. 2021
2/28/96), –69 (“[T]he contemporaneous objection rule contained in [La.
State of Louisiana v. Johnny E. Jefferson Jr. La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
2/28/96), State v. Henry, 13-0059, p. 29 (La.App.
State Of Louisiana v. Walter Terell Fisher, Jr. La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
State of Louisiana v. Steven Arnold La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
State v. Turner 267 So. 3d 1202 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
State of Louisiana v. Lee Turner, Jr. 263 So. 3d 337 La. 2018
2/28/96), -69 (“[T]he contemporaneous objection rule contained in [La.
State v. Dressner 255 So. 3d 537 La. 2018
2/28/96), (unpub'd appx.); State v. Tart , 93-0772, p. 55 (La.
State v. Reeves 254 So. 3d 665 La. 2018
2/28/96), (unpub'd appx.); State v. Tart , 93-0772, p. 55 (La.
State v. Howard 258 So. 3d 66 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
2/28/96), , 367-69, cert.
State v. Hicks 213 So. 3d 458 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Jeffrey Clark 220 So. 3d 583 La. 2016
2/28/96), -69 (“[T]he contemporaneous objection rule contained in La.Code Crim.P.
State v. Chester 208 So. 3d 338 La. 2016
2/28/96), (unpub’d appx.); State v. Tart, 93-0772, p. 55 (La.
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. Blank 192 So. 3d 93 La. 2016
See, e.g., State v. Strickland, 94-0025, pp. 51-52 (La.11/1/96), ; State v. Taylor, 93-2201, (La.2/28/96), (unpub’d appx.); State v. Tart, 93-0772, p. 55 (La.2/9/96), ; *103 544-45 (La.1988) ().
State v. Mansfield 190 So. 3d 322 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
The contemporaneous objection rule prevents “a defendant from gambling for a favorable verdict and then, upon conviction, resorting to appeal on errors which either could have been avoided or corrected at the time or should have put an immediate halt to the proceedings.” State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), , cert.
State v. Lensey 182 So. 3d 1059 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
The contemporaneous objection rule prevents “a defendant from gambling for a favorable verdict and then, upon conviction, resorting to appeal on errors which either could have been avoided or corrected at the time or should have put an immediate halt to the proceedings.” State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), , cert.
State v. Jones 178 So. 3d 1075 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
State v. Taylor, 1993-2201 (La.2/28/96), , cert.
State v. Castillo 167 So. 3d 624 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), , cert.
State v. Frith 151 So. 3d 946 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Lewis , 2012-1021 at p. 8, 112 So.3d at 801 (citing State v. Taylor, 93-2201, p. 22 (La.2/28/96), -377 ; ).
State v. Henry 147 So. 3d 1143 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Taylor, 93-2201, p. 19 (La.2/28/96), .
State v. Ross 137 So. 3d 759 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Simmons 136 So. 3d 358 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), , cert.
State v. Celestine 131 So. 3d 947 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Smith was overruled on other grounds regarding the ability of the Court to consider assignments of error in death cases in the absence of a contemporaneous objection in State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), .
State v. Musacchia 131 So. 3d 286 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), , cert.
State v. Lawrence 120 So. 3d 812 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Taylor, 93-2201, p. 19 (La.2/28/96), .
State v. Jackson 115 So. 3d 1155 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Taylor, 93-2201, p. 7 (La.2/28/96), .
State v. Ohlsson 115 So. 3d 54 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), , cert.
State v. Patterson 112 So. 3d 806 La. 2013
Nevertheless, relying on State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), , and State v. Hailey, 2002-1738 (La.App.
State v. Garcia 108 So. 3d 1 La. 2012
fficer escorting grocery store manager who was making a night deposit); State v. Brumfield, 96-2667 (La.10/20/98), (same); State v. Williams, 96-1023 (La.1/21/98), (defendant murdered victim while attempting to rob him in his truck; earlier that day, defendant had shot and wounded another victim during an attempted armed robbery); State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), (during armed robbery in a restaurant where | ^defendant had previously worked, he shot and killed one employee and shot and per
State of Louisiana v. Louis Joseph George La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State of Louisiana v. Brent Ervin Prudhomme La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Cooks, 97-0999, p. 21 (La.9/9/98); (quoting State v. Taylor, 93-2201, p. 7 (La.2/28/96); ).
State v. Prudhomme 101 So. 3d 565 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Cooks, 97-0999, p. 21 (La.9/9/98); , 649 (quoting State v. Taylor, 93-2201, p. 7 (La.2/28/96); ).
State v. King 94 So. 3d 203 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
The contemporaneous objection rule prevents “a defendant from gambling for a favorable verdict and then, upon conviction, resorting to appeal on errors which either could have been avoided or corrected at the time or should have put an immediate halt to the proceedings.” State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), -69 .
State v. Lewis 96 So. 3d 1165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
In State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), , the Louisiana Supreme Court determined that the denial of a right to exercise a backstrike was subject to a harmless error analysis, finding that although the trial court improperly denied the defendant the right to exercise his remaining peremptory challenges immediately before the jury panel was *1174 sworn, such
State v. Seals 83 So. 3d 285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
4 Cir. 9/9/09), , writ denied, 09-2194 (La.4/9/10), , citing State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), , cert.
State v. Miller 83 So. 3d 178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), , cert.
State v. Odenbaugh 82 So. 3d 215 La. 2011
ixed-race couple stabbed to death in their home during an aggravated burglary); State v. Baldwin, 96-1660 (La.12/12/97), (defendant shot and killed his estranged wife and the three men who were with her at the time); State v. Tart, 93-0772 (La.2/9/96), (defendant murdered his estranged girlfriend and severely wounded her mother); State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), (ex-employee returns to restaurant, kills one employee and attempts to kill another); State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), (h
State v. Jackson 76 So. 3d 602 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), .
State v. Dorsey 74 So. 3d 603 La. 2011
State v. Cooks, 97-0999, p. 21 (La.9/9/98); (quoting State v. Taylor, 93-2201, p. 7 (La.2/28/96); ).
State v. Carter 75 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Taylor, 93-2201, p. 7 (La.2/28/96), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. R. K. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. R.K. 64 So. 3d 426 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
In State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), , cert.
State v. Nickles 60 So. 3d 728 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
See State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), , cert.
State v. Dunn 41 So. 3d 454 La. 2010
ixed-race couple stabbed to death in their home during an aggravated burglary); State v. Baldwin, 96-1660 (La.12/12/97), (defendant shot and killed his estranged wife and the three men who were with her at the time); State v. Tart, 93-0772 (La.2/9/96), (defendant murdered his estranged girlfriend and severely wounded her mother); State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), (ex-employee returns to restaurant, kills one employee and attempts to kill another); State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), (h