Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Campbell, 670 So. 2d 1212.

31 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Darren Bridges La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
3/22/96), (“Relators acquiesced in the list of responsive verdicts given jurors by the trial judge but the return of the unresponsive verdicts of attempted jury tampering constitutes an error patent on the face of the record and requires reversal of relators’ convictions.”); State v. Mayeux, 498 So
State Of Louisiana v. Ladarious Brown La. 2022
State Of Louisiana v. Ronald Gasser La. 2022
3/22/96), the jury returned verdicts of “attempted” jury tampering to the charge of jury tampering.
State of Louisiana v. Gary P. Sims, Jr. La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2021
3/22/96), (although defendants “acquiesced in the list of responsive verdicts given jurors by the trial judge,” the jury’s “return of the unresponsive verdicts ...
State of Louisiana v. Nicholas S Layburn La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
State v. Ford 275 So. 3d 404 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
03/22/96), , 1213 ; State v. Mayeux , (La.
State of Louisiana Versus Derrick A. Ford, Jr. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2019
State v. Baugh 262 So. 3d 312 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
3/22/96), , 1213 ("Relators acquiesced in the list of responsive verdicts given jurors by the trial judge but the return of the unresponsive verdicts of attempted jury tampering constitutes an error patent on the face of the record and requires reversal of relators' convictions."); , 702 (La.
State v. Robinson 259 So. 3d 1244 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
3/22/96), (although defendants "acquiesced in the list of responsive verdicts given jurors by the trial judge," the jury's "return of the unresponsive verdicts ...
State v. Anderson 248 So. 3d 415 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
3/22/96), , 1214 (per curiam); State v. Mayeux , , 705 (La.
State v. Serigne 193 So. 3d 297 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
See id., 13-1859, p. 21, 147 So.3d at 150 (“[A]n illegal verdict acts as neither an acquittal nor a|,«conviction”) (citing State v. Campbell, 95-1409, p. 5 (La.3/22/96), ); (jury verdict containing nonwaivable defect operates as neither a conviction nor an acquittal).
State of Louisiana v. William Shupp La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
State v. Shupp 185 So. 3d 900 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Campbell, 95-1409 (La.3/22/96), .
State of Louisiana v. William J. Graham 180 So. 3d 271 La. 2015
3/22/96), this Court found that a trial court‘s error in charging a jury they could find defendant guilty of jury tampering or attempted jury tampering ―rendered the verdicts insolubly ambiguous‖ because ―the offense of jury tampering encompasses the attempt to influence jurors for corrupt purposes.‖ Campbell, 95-1409 at p
State v. Tucker 170 So. 3d 394 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
In State v. Campbell, 95-1409 (La.3/22/96), , the court held that attempted jury tampering is not a lesser and included responsive offense for the purposes of the statutes governing responsive verdicts.
State of Louisiana v. Felton Hurst, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
3/22/96), two defendants were indicted for jury tampering.
State v. Hurst 62 So. 3d 327 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
3 Cir. 5/3/95) , , aff'd in part & vacated in part, 95-1409 (La.3/22/96), , two defendants were indicted for jury tampering.
State v. DEW 968 So. 2d 288 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
We also have no quarrel with State v. Campbell, 95-1409 (La.3/22/96), , which essentially held in a four to three decision, that our law cannot allow a conviction for the attempt to attempt a crime.
State v. Smith 952 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
See State v. Campbell, 95-1409 (La.3/22/06), .
State v. Price 952 So. 2d 112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
See State v. Campbell, 95-1409 (La.3/22/96), (per curiam) (return of non-responsive verdict); (per curiam) (verdict returned by jury composed of fewer than the correct number of jurors); (no jury trial waiver); (improperly charged by
State of Louisiana v. Roland Joseph Peltier, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
State of Louisiana v. Timothy E. Robertson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
State v. Robertson 931 So. 2d 523 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
State v. Campbell, 95-1409 (La.3/22/96), .
State of Louisiana v. Ricky J. Langley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
3/22/96), the court held the defendants could be retried for jury tampering after a jury returned an invalid verdict of guilty of attempted jury tampering.
State v. Langley 896 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Subsequently, *211 in State v. Campbell, 95-1409 (La.3/22/96), , the court held the defendants could be retried for jury tampering after a jury returned an invalid verdict of guilty of attempted jury tampering.
State v. Norman 848 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
[3] The supreme court revisited the double jeopardy in State v. Campbell, 95-1409 (La.3/22/96), .
State v. Arita 811 So. 2d 1146 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
However, in State v. Campbell, 95-1409 (La.3/22/96), , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that it did not need to reconsider the continuing validity of its Mayeux decision in light of the federal district court decision in Mayeux v. Belt , finding that in convicting the Campbell defendants of attempted jury tampering, the jury had not convicted them of a non-crime, as h
State v. Joshlin 804 So. 2d 106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
In State v. Campbell, 95-1409, pp. 2-3 (La.3/22/96), (per cu-riam), the court held there can be no “attempted jury tampering” because the elements of jury tampering encompassed the attempt to influence jurors for corrupt purposes, by means of direct or indirect communications or attempted communications.
State v. Walker 778 So. 2d 1192 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
See also State v. Campbell, 95-1409 (La.3/22/96); , where retrial was ordered after the jury returned an unresponsive verdict as a result of incorrect instructions by the trial judge.
State v. Sloan 747 So. 2d 101 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
The rationale set forth in Eames was reaffirmed by our supreme court in State v. Campbell, 95-1409 (La.03/22/96), , 1213: Because the offense of jury tampering encompasses the attempt to influence jurors for corrupt purposes, by means of direct or indirect communications or attempted communications, attempted jury tampering is not a lesser and included responsive offense for purposes of La.
State v. Nazar 675 So. 2d 780 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996