Cited by

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

179 citing documents.

State v. Bridgewater 823 So. 2d 877 La. 2002
2/21/01), ; State v. Wessinger, 98-1234 (La.5/28/99), ; State v. Robertson, 97-0177 (La.3/4/98), ; State v. Tyler, 97-0338 (La.9/9/98) ; 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. Bowie 813 So. 2d 377 La. 2002
State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), -381 (counsel's agreement or acquiescence in trial court's procedure, which waived sequestration by delaying individual swearing until the entire panel was chosen and sworn, dooms any complaint).
State v. Plaisance 811 So. 2d 1172 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
See also State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), ("peremptory challenges are exercisable at any time before the jury panel is sworn," citing La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Ball 824 So. 2d 1089 La. 2002
1267 , 143 L.Ed.2d 362 (1999); 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 the attempted perpetration of an armed robbery); State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), (during armed robbery in a Cajun Fried Chicken restaurant where defendant had previously been an employee, he shot and killed one employee and shot and permanently disabled and paralyzed another); Sta
State v. LaCaze 824 So. 2d 1063 La. 2002
ant shot and killed his estranged wife and three men who were present at the time with a sawed-off shotgun); State v. Ortiz, 96-1609 (La.10/21/97), (murder-forhire scheme resulting in death of defendant's wife and a visiting friend); State v. Tart, 93-0772 (La.2/9/96), (defendant murdered his wife 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 others).
State v. Irish 807 So. 2d 208 La. 2002
State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), , cert.
State v. Deal 802 So. 2d 1254 La. 2001
State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), , cert.
State v. Crotwell 818 So. 2d 34 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Taylor, 93-2201, p. 22 (La.2/28/96), , cert.
State v. Allen 800 So. 2d 378 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Taylor, 93-2201, p. 23 (La.2/28/96), , State v. Searles, 94-0190, p. 3 (La.App.
State v. Offray 797 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
“Before allegedly prejudicial argument requires reversal, the court must be thoroughly convinced that the jury was influenced by the remarks and that such contributed to the verdict.” State v. Taylor, 93-2201, p. 21 (La.2/28/96)
State v. Jacobs 803 So. 2d 933 La. 2001
99 , 142 L.Ed.2d 79 (1998); State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), , cert.
State v. Smith 793 So. 2d 1199 La. 2001
In State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), , this Court, in a unanimous decision, clarified its prior jurisprudence regarding the application of Louisiana's contemporaneous objection rule.
State v. Gustavis 788 So. 2d 1242 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
1558 , 137 L.Ed.2d 705 (1997) (citing State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), , cert.
State v. Baudier 789 So. 2d 696 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), , cert.
Riddle v. Bickford 785 So. 2d 795 La. 2001
State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), .
State v. Deruise 802 So. 2d 1224 La. 2001
See State v. Taylor, 93-2201, p. 7 (La.2/28/96), (holding that the contemporaneous objection rule contained in La.Code Crim.
State v. Pena 788 So. 2d 472 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
“Before allegedly prejudicial argument requires reversal, the court must be thoroughly convinced that the jury was influenced by the remarks and that such contributed to the verdict.” State v. Taylor, 93-2201, p. 21 (La.2/28/96)
State v. Mitchell 779 So. 2d 698 La. 2001
State v. Taylor, 93-2201 p. 7 (La.2/28/96), -69 ( cert.
State v. Broaden 780 So. 2d 349 La. 2001
art. 841; State v. Taylor, 93-2201, pp. 4-7 (La.2/28/96), -69 .
State v. Brown 780 So. 2d 536 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
According to the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), , cert.
State v. Palmer 775 So. 2d 1231 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
P. art. 841; State v. Taylor, 93-2201, pp. 4-7 (La.2/28/96), -369 , cert.
State v. Williams 776 So. 2d 604 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
art. 841; State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), , cert.
State v. Whitton 770 So. 2d 844 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. Taylor, 93-2201, p. 21 (La.2/28/96)
State v. Jones 769 So. 2d 708 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96); -375 , cert.
State v. Schmidt 771 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
The reason for the contemporaneous objection rule was set forth in State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96); , cert.
State v. Carter 767 So. 2d 839 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
(Footnote omitted) overruled in part, State v. Carter, 94-2859 (La.11/27/95), , questioned, State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), , the Louisiana Supreme Court previously concluded the state violated defendant's right to counsel when it unlawfully removed him from the trial venue without notice to his appointed counsel or to the trial court.
Riddle v. Bickford 767 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
State v. Taylor, 93-2201, p. 22 (La.2/28/96), , cert.
State v. Tilley 767 So. 2d 6 La. 2000
99 , 142 L.Ed.2d 79 (1998) (defendant murdered victim while attempting to rob him in his truck; earlier that day, defendant had shot and wounded another victim during the attempted perpetration of an armed robbery); State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), , cert.
State v. Hoffman 768 So. 2d 542 La. 2000
art. 841; State v. Taylor, 93-2201, p. 7 (La.2/28/96), .
State v. Bright 776 So. 2d 1134 La. 2000
art. 841; State v. Taylor, 93-2201, p. 7 (La.2/28/96), .
State v. Ricard 751 So. 2d 393 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. Taylor, 93-2201, p. 19 (La.2/28/96), , cert.
State v. Rollins 749 So. 2d 890 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
art. 921; State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.02/28/96), , U.S. cert.
State v. Frith 747 So. 2d 1269 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
“An error is harmless if the verdict rendered was surely unattributable to the error.” State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), , cert.
State v. Lambert 749 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), , cert.
State v. Broadway 753 So. 2d 801 La. 1999
venteen-year-old defendant kidnapped the victim while stealing his truck and ultimately drove him to a secluded area and shot him three times in the head); State v. Scales, 93-2003 (La.5/22/95), (nineteen-year-old defendant, while engaged in the armed robbery of employees at a Church's Fried Chicken, shot and killed one of the employees); State v. Taylor, 93-2201 *820 (La.2/28/96), (during the armed robbery in the Cajun Fried Chicken restaurant where defendant had previously been an employee, he
State v. Rogers 757 So. 2d 655 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
art. 841; See State v. Taylor, 93-2201, p. 4-7 (La.2/28/96), , cert.
Criticized State v. Varnado 753 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), , cert.
State v. Lucky 755 So. 2d 845 La. 1999
(citations omitted), overruled on other grounds by State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), .
State v. Thibodeaux 750 So. 2d 916 La. 1999
State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96); ; but see State v. Wessinger, 98-1234 (La.
State v. Zeno 742 So. 2d 699 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), , cert.
State v. Thomas 747 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
art. 841; State v. Rankin, supra; State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), .
State v. Adams 752 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), , cert.
State v. Hampton 750 So. 2d 867 La. 1999
State v. Williams, 96-1023 (La.1/21/98); ; State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96); .
State v. Simmons 738 So. 2d 1131 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), , cert.
State v. Wessinger 736 So. 2d 162 La. 1999
These alleged hearsay statements and the warrants were not the subjects of contemporaneous objections at trial and thus are precluded from review by State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), .
State v. Biglane 738 So. 2d 630 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), , cert.
State v. Smith 740 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), , cert.
State v. Howard 751 So. 2d 783 La. 1999
art. 807; art. 841; State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96); -69 (reviving contemporaneous objection rule for guilt stage even in capital cases).
State v. Snyder 750 So. 2d 832 La. 1999
State v. Taylor , 93-2201 p. 19 (La.2/28/96), .
State v. Castleberry 758 So. 2d 749 La. 1999
State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), ("This Court's scope of review in capital cases will be limited to alleged errors occurring during the guilt phase that are contemporaneously objected to, and alleged errors occurring during the sentencing phase, whether objected to or not.") Because the first two statements occurred during the guilt phase and were no