DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Mitchell, 674 So. 2d 250.

65 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Terrence Armstrong A/K/A Terrance Armstrong A/K/A Dugga La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
  • State of Louisiana v. Allen Joseph Fontenot La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
    570, [139] L.Ed.2d [410] [(1997)] ( “we need not reach the issue of whether the failure to dismiss [prospective juror] Ms. Myers for cause was error because the defense did not use all its peremptory challenges”); State v. Mitchell, 94–2078 (La.5/21/96), (“In the instant case, we need not reach the issue of whether there was an erroneous denial of defendant’s challenge for cause, since the record reveals that defendant failed to use all his peremptory challenges.”).
  • State Of Louisiana v. Shane Christian Pagano La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
  • State of Louisiana v. Travis Boys La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
  • State Of Louisiana v. Rusty Willie La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
  • State of Louisiana v. Johnny E. Jefferson Jr. La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
  • State Of Louisiana v. Ronald St. Cyre La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
  • State v. Devillier 258 So. 3d 230 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
  • State v. Domingue 244 So. 3d 489 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
  • State of Louisiana v. Michael Adam Domingue La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
  • State v. Nixon 250 So. 3d 273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
  • State of Louisiana v. Michael Kees La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
  • State v. Young 216 So. 3d 236 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
  • State v. Hicks 213 So. 3d 458 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2017
  • State v. Vansant 170 So. 3d 1059 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    See State v. Mitchell, 94-2078 (La.5/21/96), , cert.
  • State v. Castillo 167 So. 3d 624 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    The Louisiana Supreme Court has recognized that “much credit should be accorded to the good sense and fairmindedness of jurors who have seen the evidence and heard the argument, and have been instructed repeatedly by the trial judge that arguments of counsel are not evidence.” State v. Mitchell, 94-2078 (La.5/21/96), , cert.
  • State v. Lawrence 120 So. 3d 812 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    State v. Casey, 99-0023, p. 17 (La.1/26/00) ; State v. Mitchell, 94-2078, p. 11 (La.5/21/96), .
  • State v. Jackson 115 So. 3d 1155 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    State v. Casey, 99-0023, p. 17 (La.1/26/00) ; State v. Mitchell, 94-2078 (La.5/21/96), .
  • State v. Miller 83 So. 3d 178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    The Louisiana Supreme Court has recognized that “much credit should be accorded to the good sense and fairmindedness of jurors who have seen the evidence and heard the argument, and have been instructed repeatedly by the trial judge that arguments of counsel are not evidence.” State *193 v. Mitchell, 94-2078 (La.5/21/96), , cert.
  • State of Louisiana v. Mary Henderson Trahan La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
  • State v. Trahan 69 So. 3d 1240 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    The Louisiana Supreme Court has held that “much credit should be accorded to the good sense and fairmindedness of jurors who have seen the evidence and heard the argument, and have been instructed repeatedly by the trial judge that arguments of counsel are not evidence.” State v. Mitchell, 94-2078, p. 11 (La.5/21/96), , cert.
  • State v. Nickles 60 So. 3d 728 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    See State v. Mitchell, 94-2078 (La.5/21/96), , cert.
  • State v. Wilson 28 So. 3d 394 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    The laiLouisiana Supreme Court has recognized that “much credit should be accorded to the good sense and fairmindedness of jurors who have seen the evidence and heard the argument, and have been instructed repeatedly by the trial judge that arguments of counsel are not evidence.” State v. Mitchell, 94-2078 (La.5/21/96), , cert.
  • State v. Reeves 11 So. 3d 1031 La. 2009
    1940 , 164 L.Ed.2d 669 (2006); State v. Mitchell, 1994-2078 (La.5/21/96), , cert.
  • State v. Robbins 986 So. 2d 828 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    State v. Mitchell, 94-2078 (La.5/21/96), , cert.
  • State v. Campbell 983 So. 2d 810 La. 2008
    See State v. Mitchell, 1994-2078, p. 5 (La.5/21/96), , cert.
  • STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS HECTOR LEYVA-MARTINEZ AKA HECTOR L. MARTINEZ AKA HECTOR LEYVA AKA HECTOR LAZARO LEYVA MARTINEZ La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
  • State v. Leyva-Martinez 981 So. 2d 276 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    More appropriate language was addressed in State v. Mitchell, 94-2078 (La.5/21/96), , cert.
  • State v. Pinion 968 So. 2d 131 La. 2007
    A trial court's erroneous ruling which deprives a defendant of a peremptory challenge substantially violates that defendant's rights."); cf. State v. Connolly, 96-1680, p. 10 (La.7/1/97), (failure to remove juror with a remaining peremptory challenge waives appellate review of trial court's denial of a cause challenge to the jury); State v. Mitchell, 94-2078, p. 4 (La.5/21/96), (the Court need not reach the question of whether there was an erroneous denial of a cause challenge when the defendant
  • State v. Frank 957 So. 2d 724 La. 2007
    See e.g. State v. Mitchell 94-2078, pp. 11-12 (La.5/21/96), -58 (La.1996)(argument by prosecutor requesting jurors to impose "same penalty" that defendant imposed on victim "although in a much nicer manner," not reversible error.).
  • State of Louisiana v. Kenneth Tittle La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
  • State v. Smith 935 So. 2d 797 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    State v. Mitchell, 94-2078 (La.05/21/96), , cert.
  • State v. Lai 902 So. 2d 550 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    State v. Mitchell, 94-2078 (La.5/21/96), , cert.
  • State v. Jones 884 So. 2d 582 La. 2004
    we need not reach the issue of whether failure to dismiss [a prospective juror] for cause was error because the defense did not use all its peremptory challenges."); State v. Mitchell, 94-2078 p. 4 (La.5/21/96), , cert.
  • State v. Uloho 875 So. 2d 918 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
    State v. Mitchell, 94-2078 (La.5/21/96), , cert.
  • State v. Hotard 864 So. 2d 748 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    [7] See, State v. Mitchell, 94-2078 (La.5/21/96), , cert.
  • State v. Dilosa 849 So. 2d 657 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    State v. Mitchell, 94-2078, p. 11 (La.5/21/96), , cert.
  • State v. LaCaze 824 So. 2d 1063 La. 2002
    1169 , 140 L.Ed.2d 179 (1998); State v. Mitchell, 94-2078 (La.5/21/96), (1996)(22 year old mildly retarded defendant with an IQ of between 61 and 71 had full opportunity to present this evidence but that neither federal nor state constitution precluded execution), cert.
  • State v. King 804 So. 2d 57 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    State v. Deruise, 98-0541 (La.4/3/01), ; State v. Mitchell, 94-2078 (La.5/21/96), .
  • State v. Deruise 802 So. 2d 1224 La. 2001
    State v. Mitchell, 94-2078, p. 6 (La.5/21/96), ; State v. Cousan, 94-2503, pp. 15-16 (La.11/25/96), -92 .
  • State v. Lewis 782 So. 2d 662 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    State v. Mitchell, 94-2078 (La.5/21/96), ., cert.
  • State v. Brown 780 So. 2d 536 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    State v. Mitchell, 94-2078 (La.5/21/96), , cert.
  • State v. Coleman 756 So. 2d 1218 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    State v. Mitchell, 94-2078 (La.5/21/96), , cert.
  • State v. Hundley 760 So. 2d 417 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    570 , 139 L.Ed.2d 410 ("we need not reach the issue of whether the failure to dismiss [prospective juror] Ms. Myers for cause was error because the defense did not use all its peremptory challenges"); State v. Mitchell, 94-2078 (La.5/21/96), ("In the instant case, we need not reach the issue of whether there was an erroneous denial of defendant's challenge for cause, since the record reveals that defendant failed to use all his peremptory challenges.").
  • State v. Hill 742 So. 2d 690 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
  • State v. Hampton 750 So. 2d 867 La. 1999
    (unpublished appendix) (taken in their entirety, prosecutor's comments regarding the defendant's mitigating evidence of his mental retardation were not unfair and did not invite jurors to reject mental retardation as a mitigating circumstance; prosecutor simply questioned whether the defendant had establishe
  • State v. Wessinger 736 So. 2d 162 La. 1999
    570 , ___ L.Ed.2d ___ ( "we need not reach the issue of whether the failure to dismiss [prospective juror] Ms. Myers for cause was error because the defense did not use all its peremptory challenges"); State v. Mitchell, 94-2078 (La.5/21/96), ("In the instant case, we need not reach the issue of whether there was an erroneous denial of defendant's challenge for cause, since the record reveals that defendant failed to use all his peremptory challenges.").
  • State v. Howard 751 So. 2d 783 La. 1999
    See also State v. Mitchell, 94-2078 (La.5/21/96), , cert.
  • State v. Castleberry 758 So. 2d 749 La. 1999
    State v. Mitchell, 94-2078 (La.5/21/96), ; State v. Cousan, 94-2503 (La.11/25/96), .
  • State v. Ewens 735 So. 2d 89 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    The Louisiana Supreme Court addressed the same issue in State v. Mitchell, 94-2078 (La.5/21/96), -55 , cert.