Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Strickland, 683 So. 2d 218.

139 citing documents.

State v. Anderson 78 So. 3d 176 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. Strickland, 94-0025 (La.11/1/96), ; State v. Crandell, 43,262 (La.App.2d Cir.6/18/08), , writs denied, 2008-1582 (La.3/27/09), and 2008-1659 (La.3/27/09), , cert.
Floyd v. Cain 62 So. 3d 57 La. 2011
at 3381); see also State v. Strickland, 94-0025, p. 38 (La.11/1/96), (quoting State v. Marshall, 81-3115, Rp.
State v. Sparks 68 So. 3d 435 La. 2011
State v. Strickland, 92-0025, p. 51 (La.11/1/96), -239 ; -728 (La.1985); -125 (La.1984).
State of Louisiana v. Jamarcus Dewayne Dorsey La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Strickland, 94-0025 (La.11/1/96)
State v. Dorsey 58 So. 3d 637 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Strickland, 94-0025 (La.11/1/96), ; (La.
State v. Clarkson 48 So. 3d 272 La. 2010
State v. Strickland, 94-0025, p. 10 (La.11/1/96), (To the extent that a capital charge requires a unanimous 12-person verdict and a non-capital charge necessarily punishable at hard labor requires a concurrence only of 10 of 12 jurors, “the joinder of capital and non-capital charges in a single indictment violates the terms of La.C.Cr.P.
State of Louisiana v. Charles D. Washington La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
art. 920; see State v. Strickland, 94-0025, p. 13 (La.11/1/96), (although prior jurisprudence of the Court distinguished between misjoinder and prejudicial joinder to determine whether defendant’s proper remedy at the trial court level was a motion to quash or motion to sever, at the appellate level “the distinction becomes blurred since the basis for
State v. Smith 34 So. 3d 386 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
P. art. 920 and State v. Strickland, 94-0025, p. 13 (La.11/1/96), .
State v. Negron 25 So. 3d 249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State, in the Interest of Jw 17 So. 3d 521 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Harrison 16 So. 3d 447 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
See also, State v. Strickland, 94-0025, p. 38 (La.11/1/96), .
State of Louisiana v. Norris A. Palms La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. Strickland, 94-0025 (La.11/1/96)
State of Louisiana v. D. T. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. Strickland, 94-0025 (La.11/1/96)
State v. D.T. 998 So. 2d 1258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
State v. Strickland, 94-0025 (La.11/1/96)
State v. DT 998 So. 2d 1258 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. Strickland, 94-0025 (La.11/1/96)
State v. Franklin 996 So. 2d 387 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
P. art. 712; State v. Strickland, 94-0025 (La.11/1/96), ; State v. Ray, 42,096 (La.
State v. Champ 991 So. 2d 1143 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
See also, State v. Strickland, 94-0025, p. 38 (La.11/1/96), .
State v. Davis 993 So. 2d 295 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
State v. Crandell 987 So. 2d 375 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
State v. Strickland, 94-0025 (La.11/1/96), .
State v. Smith 974 So. 2d 79 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
State v. Strickland, 94-0025 (La.11/1/96), .
State v. Burbank 971 So. 2d 1173 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
State v. Strickland, 94-0025, p. 51 (La.11/1/96), ; State v. Williams, 03-942, p. 20 (La.App.
State v. Ray 961 So. 2d 607 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
art. 712; State v. Strickland, 94-0025 (La.11/1/96), ; State v. Gipson, 28,113 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Paul Roberts, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
11/1/96), questioned on other grounds in State v. Joseph, 03-1445 (La.App.
State v. Roberts 947 So. 2d 208 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
283 , 151 L.Ed.2d 208 (2001); and State v. Strickland, 94-0025 (La.11/1/96), , questioned on other grounds in State v. Joseph, 03-1445 (La.App.
State v. Crochet 931 So. 2d 1083 La. 2006
art. 920; see State v. Strickland, 94-0025, p. 13 (La.11/1/96), (although prior jurisprudence of the Court distinguished between misjoinder and prejudicial joinder to determine whether defendant's proper remedy at the trial court level was a motion to quash or motion to sever, at the appellate level "the distinction becomes blurred since the basis for the prohibition against
State v. Moore 920 So. 2d 334 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
P. art. 712; State v. Strickland, 94-0025 (La.11/1/96), .
State v. McGinnis 917 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
[4] State v. Strickland, 94-0025 (La.11/1/96), .
State v. Brown 907 So. 2d 1 La. 2005
P. art. 841; State v. Strickland, 94-0025 (La.11/1/96), .
State v. Haywood 907 So. 2d 168 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
See also, State v. Strickland, 94-0025, p. 38 (La.11/1/96), .
State v. Cambre 902 So. 2d 473 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Strickland, 94-0025 (La.11/1/96), ; State v. Owen, supra.
State v. Higgins 898 So. 2d 1219 La. 2005
Id.; see also State v. Strickland, 94-0025, pp. 48-49 (La.11/1/96), ; La.Code Crim.
State v. Lucas 896 So. 2d 331 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
State v. Strickland, 94-0025 (La.11/1/96)
State v. Motley 895 So. 2d 708 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968); State v. Strickland, 94-0025 (La.11/01/96), ; State v. Fernandez, 03-987 (La.App.
State v. Harris 892 So. 2d 1238 La. 2005
art. 712; [27] see State v. Strickland, 94-0025 p. 23 (La.11/1/96), .
State v. Jones 891 So. 2d 760 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
art. 712; State v. Strickland, 94-0025, p. 23 (La.11/1/96), ; overruled on other grounds by State v. Comeaux, 93-2729 (La.7/1/97), .
State v. Myers 888 So. 2d 1002 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
See also, State v. Strickland, 94-0025, p. 38 (La.11/1/96), .
State v. Manning 885 So. 2d 1044 La. 2004
Cf. State v. Strickland, 93-0001 (La.11/1/96), (harmless errors, however numerous, do not aggregate to reach the level of reversible error); State v. Taylor, 669 So.2d at 364 (unpub'd appx.); State v. Tart, 672 So.2d at 154 ; -45 (La.1988), cert.
State v. Goodwin 881 So. 2d 1229 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
See also, State v. Strickland, 94-0025, p. 38 (La.11/1/96), .
State v. Joseph 875 So. 2d 1011 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
[13] 94-0025 (La.11/1/96), -227 .
State v. Bright 875 So. 2d 37 La. 2004
See also, State v. Strickland, 94-0025, p. 38 (La.11/1/96), .
State of Louisiana v. Charles Brown, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
5th Cir.11/10/99), writs denied, 99-3477 (La.6/30/00), and 00-0150 (La.6/30/00), quoting State v. Strickland, 94-0025, pp. 51-52 (La.11/1/96)
State v. Brown 874 So. 2d 318 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
5th Cir.11/10/99), , writs denied, 99-3477 (La.6/30/00), and 00-0150 (La.6/30/00), , quoting State v. Strickland, 94-0025, pp. 51-52 (La.11/1/96), .
HOLLY & SMITH ARC., INC. v. St. Helena Congregate Facility 872 So. 2d 1147 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
art. 801 D(2) & (3)(a); State v. Strickland, 94-0025, p. 22 (La.11/1/96), ; State v. Lutcher, 96-2378, p. 11 (La.App.
State v. Williams 866 So. 2d 1003 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
App. 5th Cir.11/10/99), , writs denied, 99-3477 (La.6/30/00), and 00-0150 (La.6/30/00), , quoting State v. Strickland, 94-0025, pp. 51-52 (La.11/1/96), .
State v. Fernandez 864 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
11/1/96), , citing Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 135 , 88 S.Ct.
State v. Simmons 848 So. 2d 58 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
The Louisiana Supreme Court addressed this issue in State v. Strickland, 94-0025 (La.11/1/96), , where the court explained: The distinction between misjoinder and prejudicial joinder is an important one, but only at the trial level to determine whether a defendant's proper remedy is a motion to quash or a motion to sever.
State v. Marshall 843 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
art. 712; State v. Strickland, 94-0025, p. 23 (La.11/1/96), .
State v. Rodriguez 839 So. 2d 106 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State v. Strickland, 94-0025 (La.11/1/96), ; State v. Lyons, 01-719 (La.App.
State v. Doleman 835 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
State v. Strickland, 94-0025, p. 43 (La.11/1/96), .
State v. Clark 828 So. 2d 1173 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Just as the Louisiana Supreme Court rejected the same argument in State v. Strickland, 94-0025, pp. 51-52 (La.11/1/96), , 239 and State v. Tart, 93-0772, p. 55 (La.2/9/96), , this Court now rejects defendant's argument on this assignment of error.