Cited by

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

179 citing documents.

  • State v. Guillard 736 So. 2d 273 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    art. 841; State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), .
  • State v. Pascual 735 So. 2d 98 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    See also, State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), , cert.
  • State v. Davis 726 So. 2d 500 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    State v. Taylor, 93-2201, p. 21 (La.2/28/96), , cert denied, 519 U.S. 860 , 117 S.Ct.
  • State v. Chester 724 So. 2d 1276 La. 1999
    State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), .
  • State v. Frost 727 So. 2d 417 La. 1998
    Consequently, we refer to our previous decision in State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), , cert.
  • State v. Brumfield 737 So. 2d 660 La. 1998
  • State v. Cooks 720 So. 2d 637 La. 1998
    art. 841; State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), , cert.
  • State v. Reeves 715 So. 2d 1291 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    1558 , 137 L.Ed.2d 705 (1997) (citing State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), , cert.
  • State v. Letulier 750 So. 2d 784 La. 1998
    State v. Taylor, 93-2201, (La.2/28/96), , cert.
  • State v. Langley 711 So. 2d 651 La. 1998
    State v. Taylor, 93-2201, p. 21 (La.2/28/96)
  • State v. Williams 708 So. 2d 703 La. 1998
    art. 841; State v. Taylor , 93-2201, p. 7 (La.), , cert denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct.
  • State v. Robertson 712 So. 2d 8 La. 1998
    The identical argument was made and rejected in State v. Taylor, 93-2201, p. 20 (La.2/28/96), , cert.
  • State v. Snyder 700 So. 2d 1082 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
    1982); State v. Taylor, 93-2201, p. 7 (La.2/28/96), , cert.
  • State v. Bradford 700 So. 2d 1046 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.02/28/96)
  • State v. Koon 704 So. 2d 756 La. 1997
    1558 , 137 L.Ed.2d 705 (1997) (citing State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), *764 , cert.
  • State v. Amato 698 So. 2d 972 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    State v. Taylor, 93-2201, p. 19 (La.2/28/96), -75 , cert.
  • State v. Craig 699 So. 2d 865 La. 1997
    gree murder of Corporal Betty Smothers, who was escorting Piggly Wiggly Grocery Store Manager Kimen Lee to the bank, when Broadway and Brumfield opened fire on the car); State v. Scales, 93-2003 (La.5/22/95); (The nineteen year old defendant, while engaged in the armed robbery of a Church's Fried Chicken, shot and killed one of the employees); State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), (During the armed robbery of the Cajun Fried Chicken restaurant where defendant had previously been an employee, he
  • State v. Hart 691 So. 2d 651 La. 1997
    State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), .
  • State v. Williams 688 So. 2d 1277 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    State v. Taylor, 93-2201, p. 17 (La.2/28/96); .
  • State v. Smith 687 So. 2d 529 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    In State v. Taylor, 93-2201, p. 19 (La.2/28/96); , cert.
  • State v. Akins 687 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    In State v. Taylor, 94-2078, pp. 19,20 (La.2/28/96), -375 , the supreme court, addressing this issue, stated the following: This Court has stated, as a general matter, that a prosecutor retains considerable latitude in making closing arguments.
  • State v. Lavalais 685 So. 2d 1048 La. 1996
    See State v. Sepulvado, 93-2692 (La.4/8/96), ; State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), .
  • State v. Seals 684 So. 2d 368 La. 1996
    Therefore, this Court follows the scope of review analysis of State v. Taylor, 93-KA-2201 (La.2/28/96), .
  • State v. Cousan 684 So. 2d 382 La. 1996
    State v. Taylor, 93-2201, p. 7 (La.2/28/96), .
  • State v. Strickland 683 So. 2d 218 La. 1996
    2/28/96), -369 , petition for cert.
  • State v. Roy 681 So. 2d 1230 La. 1996
  • State v. Allen 682 So. 2d 713 La. 1996
    2/28/96), that errors not contemporaneously objected to during the guilt phase of a capital trial were not reviewable on appeal.
  • State v. Mitchell 674 So. 2d 250 La. 1996
  • Overruled State v. Sepulvado 672 So. 2d 158 La. 1996
    2/28/96), , and returned to the previous standard of review in which errors not contemporaneously objected to during the guilt phase of a capital case were not reviewable on appeal, although unobjected to errors during the sentencing phase were reviewable, as