Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Joseph, 637 So. 2d 1032.

29 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Calvin Javontae Dshawn Powell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
When the defendant raises the issue of untimely prosecution, as in this case, the “state has a heavy burden of justifying an apparently untimely commencement of trial on grounds that the time limits in Art. 578 were either interrupted or suspended.” State v. Joseph, 93-2734 (La.6/3/94)
State of Louisiana v. Gerard Ladmirault La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2019
second trial ended in a mistrial until the Defendant’s third trial commenced to have the Section A case transferred to Section E. The record reflects numerous requests by the State and numerous orders issued by the district court judge in Section A for the transfer of the case to Section E. Thus, we conclude that the running of prescription from the June 24, 15 See also, (La.
State v. Andrews (In re Andrews) 255 So. 3d 1106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. West 154 So. 3d 609 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Morris, 99-3235, p. 1 (La.2/18/00), (per curiam); State v. Joseph, 93-2734, p. 1 (La.6/3/94), ; State v. Bell, 2002-2349, p. 9 (La.App.
State v. Jones 144 So. 3d 1092 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Morris, 99-3235, p. 1 (La.2/18/00), (per cu-riam)-, State v. Joseph, 93-2734, p. 1 (La.6/3/94), ; State v. Bell, 2002-2349, p. 9 (La.App.
State v. Kelly 133 So. 3d 25 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Morris, 99-3235, p. 1 (La.2/18/00), (per curiam); State v. Joseph, 93-2734, p. 1 (La.6/3/94), ; State v. Bell, 2002-2349, p. 9 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Deke Edmond Duraso La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State of Louisiana v. Deke Edmond Duraso La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Duraso 127 So. 3d 1015 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
When the defendant raises the issue of untimely prosecution, as in this case, the “state has a heavy burden of justifying an apparently untimely | .¡commencement of trial on grounds that the time limits in Art. 578 were either interrupted or suspended.” State v. Joseph, 93-2734 (La.6/3/94), .
State v. Harris 83 So. 3d 269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Joseph, 93-2784 (La.6/3/94), .
State v. Wilson 68 So. 3d 1232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Furthermore, in State v. Joseph, 93-2734 (La.6/3/94), , the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a heavy trial docket was not a cause beyond the control of the State for purposes of interrupting prescription.
State v. Jacobs 67 So. 3d 535 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Joseph, 93-2734 (La.6/3/94), .
State of Louisiana v. Ronald G. Grudewicz AKA Ronald G. Grideiocz AKA Ronald G. Grudewcz AKA Ronald Grudewzcz La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Joseph, 93-2734, p. 1 (La.6/3/94)
State v. GRUDEWICZ 59 So. 3d 568 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Joseph, 93-2734, p. 1 (La.6/3/94)
State v. Lenox 999 So. 2d 79 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
State v. Joseph, 93-2734 (La.6/3/94), .
State v. Tillman 997 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
State v. Morris, 99-3235 (La.2/18/00), , citing State v. Joseph, 93-2734 (La.6/3/94), .
State v. Baptiste 995 So. 2d 1242 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
State v. Joseph, 93-2734 (La.6/3/94), .
State v. Lathan 953 So. 2d 890 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
State v. Morris, 99-3235 (La.2/18/00), , citing State v. Joseph, 93-2734 (La.6/3/94), ; State v. Rome, supra ; see also State v. Harris, supra .
State v. Causey 844 So. 2d 1076 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), ; State v. Joseph, 93-2734, p. 1 (La.6/3/94), .
State v. Brooks 838 So. 2d 778 La. 2003
State v. Joseph, 93-2734, p. 1 (La.6/3/94)
State v. Morris 755 So. 2d 205 La. 2000
State v. Joseph, 93-2734, p. 1 (La.6/3/94)
State v. Watts 738 So. 2d 628 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State v. Joseph, 93-2734 (La.6/3/94), .
State v. Manuel 720 So. 2d 395 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
State v. Joseph, 93-2734 (La.6/3/94), .
State v. Cyrex 746 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Thus, the district court’s reliance on State v. Joseph, 93-2734 (La.6/3/94), , in determining delays due to appellate review of erroneous trial court decisions should be counted against the state, is misplaced.
State v. Campbell 715 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
State v. Joseph, 93-2734, p. 1 (La.6/3/94), .
State v. Johnson 713 So. 2d 579 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
State v. Joseph, 93-2734 (La.6/3/94)
State v. Mattox 704 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
In State v. Joseph, 93-2734 (La.6/3/94), , the Supreme Court held, in a per curiam decision, that the trial court erred in denying a motion to quash where the defendant's trial had been "bumped" due to a heavy trial docket.
State v. Forrest 701 So. 2d 706 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
State v. Joseph, 93-2734 (La.6/3/94), .
State v. Stelly 645 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
6/3/94), , place a high burden on the State to demonstrate that the time limit for bringing a defendant to trial has been suspended or interrupted, it is clear that in this case, the State met its burden of proof.