Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Allen, 682 So. 2d 713.

94 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Carlos M. Smith La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2023
9/5/96), State v. Ford, 338 So.
State Of Louisiana v. Oderra Benitez Holmes La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
9/ 5/ 96), State v. McIntyre, 381 So.
State of Louisiana v. Orlando Brown La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
9/5/96), the Louisiana Supreme Court found that the defendant voluntarily accompanied the deputies to the substation.
State of Louisiana v. Nancy Rogers A/K/A Nancy Lynn Rogers La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
nse cause to the juror, even assuming that the challenge had been made but not preserved in the record; remaining unrecorded bench conferences involved evidentiary matters that were otherwise addressed in the appeal, or involved matters of no discernible impact for which the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice); State v. Allen, 95-1754, p. 11 (La.9/5/96), (failure to record arguments at the bench concerning some of the defense peremptory challenges harmless when challenges for cause and ar
State Of Louisiana v. Michael Halford La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
9/ 5/ 96), ( although the juror admitted having known the victim for two years and drinking beer with the victim at the club where the victim was murdered, the court held the juror did not have an extensive personal relationship with the victim and the record failed to show the juror' s relationship with the victim wo
State v. Quinn 275 So. 3d 360 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
State of Louisiana v. Reginald Taral Warren La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
State v. Allen, 95-1754 (La.9/5/96)
State v. Warren 239 So. 3d 960 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State of Louisiana v. Robert Glen Coleman 188 So. 3d 174 La. 2016
State v. Washington 187 So. 3d 71 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
In State v. Allen, 95-1754, pp. 13-14 (La.9/5/96), , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: [Ejven where a prospective juror knows the victim, the defense must show the juror’s acquaintance with the victim is such that it is reasonable to conclude it would influence the juror in arriving at a verdict to be a sufficient ground for a challenge for cause.
State v. Porter 151 So. 3d 871 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
In State v. Allen, 95-1754, pp. 13-14 (La.9/5/96), , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: [E]ven where a prospective juror knows the victim, the defense must show the juror’s acquaintance with the victim is such that it is reasonable to conclude it would influence the juror in arriving at a verdict to be a sufficient ground for a challenge for cause.
State v. Williams 137 So. 3d 832 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Allen, 95-1754, p. 11 (La.9/5/96), .
State v. Pernell 127 So. 3d 18 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
4 Cir. 7/27/11), ; State v. Allen, 95-1754, p. 11 (La.9/5/96), .
State v. Hollins 123 So. 3d 840 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Draughn, 2005-1825, p. 63 (La.1/17/07), (upheld conviction where record included testimony of all witnesses); State v. Castleberry, 98-1388 at p. 29, 758 So.2d at 773 (lack of recorded bench conference and transcript of voir dire proceedings held not to be substantial or significant omission from record); State v. Allen, 95-1754 (La.9/5/96), (upheld conviction where defendant’s arguments relating to voir dire were noted as bench conferences in the record and challenges for cause and the
State of Louisiana v. Demarcus W. Law La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
hat the challenge had been made but not preserved in the record; remaining unrecorded bench conferences involved evidentiary matters that were otherwise addressed in the 4 appeal, or involved matters of no discernible impact for which the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice); State v. Allen, 95-1754, p. 11 (La.9/5/96), (failure to record arguments at the bench concerning some of the defense peremptory challenges harmless when challenges for cause and arguments on the challenges were fully
State v. Law 110 So. 3d 1271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
stantial basis for denying a defense cause to the juror, even assuming that the challenge had been made but not preserved in the record; remaining unrecorded bench conferences involved evidentiary matters that were otherwise addressed in the | ^appeal, or involved matters of no discernible impact for which the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice); State v. Allen, 95-1754, p. 11 (La.9/5/96), (failure to record arguments at the bench concerning some of *1275 the defense peremptory challenges
State of Louisiana v. Jody D. Hamilton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
defense cause to the juror, even assuming that the challenge had been made but not preserved in the record; remaining unrecorded bench conferences involved evidentiary matters that were otherwise addressed in the appeal, or involved matters of no discernible impact for which the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice); State v. Allen, 95-1754, p. 11 (La.9/5/96), (failure to record arguments at the bench concerning some of the defense peremptory challenges harmless when challenges for cause an
State of Louisiana v. Terrance L. Sinegal La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
nse cause to the juror, even assuming that the challenge had been made but not preserved in the record; remaining unrecorded bench conferences involved evidentiary matters that were otherwise addressed in the appeal, or involved matters of no discernible impact for which the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice); State v. Allen, 95-1754, p. 11 (La.9/5/96), (failure to record arguments at the bench concerning some of the defense peremptory challenges harmless when challenges for cause and ar
State v. Sinegal 97 So. 3d 649 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
substantial basis for denying a defense cause to the juror, even assuming that the challenge had been made but not preserved in the record; remaining unrecorded bench conferences involved evidentiary matters that were otherwise addressed in the appeal, or involved matters of no discernible impact for which the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice); State v. Allen, 95-1754, p. 11 (La.9/5/96), (failure to record arguments at the bench concerning some of the defense peremptory challenges harml
State of Louisiana v. L. W. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
substantial basis for denying a defense cause to the juror, even assuming that the challenge had been made but not preserved in the record; remaining unrecorded bench conferences involved evidentiary matters that were otherwise addressed in the appeal, or involved matters of no discernible impact for which the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice); State v. Allen, 95-1754, p. 11 (La.9/5/96), (failure to record arguments at the bench concerning some of the defense peremptory challenges harml
State v. Higginbotham 122 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
220 , 145 L.Ed.2d 185 (1999) (lack of recorded bench conference and transcript of voir dire proceedings held not to be substantial or significant omission from record); State v. Allen, 95-1754 (La.9/5/96), (upheld conviction where defendant’s arguments relating to voir dire were noted as bench conferences in the record and challenges for cause and the attorney’s arguments concerning them were transcribed).
State of Louisiana v. Ricky J. Charpentier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Allen, 95-1754 (La.9/5/96)
State v. Charpentier 86 So. 3d 86 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Allen, 95-1754 (La.9/5/96); .
State v. Rubens 83 So. 3d 30 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Allen, 95-1754, p. 11 (La.9/5/96), .
State v. Brown 56 So. 3d 1095 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Allen, 95-1754, p. 11 (La.9/5/96), .
State v. Hamilton 36 So. 3d 209 La. 2010
Further, in State v. Fisher this court stated, “A prime characteristic of any Fourth Amendment seizure of a person is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would not consider himself or herself free to leave.” 720 So.2d at 1183 (quoting State v. Allen, 95-1754 (La.9/5/96), ).
State v. Ashley 22 So. 3d 1045 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
State v. Allen, 95-1754 (La.9/5/96), ; State v. Campbell, 2006-0286 (La.5/21/08), , cert.
State v. Rogers 19 So. 3d 487 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2009
In State v. Allen, 95-1754, pp. 7-8 (La.9/5/96), , the Louisiana Supreme Court found that the defendant voluntarily accompanied the deputies to the substation.
State v. Lewis 7 So. 3d 782 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Allen, 95-1754, p. 10 (La.9/5/96), .
State v. Thomas 8 So. 3d 80 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
5 Cir.1989), writ denied, State v. Allen, 95-1754 (La.9/5/96), .
State v. Warren 2 So. 3d 523 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
This Court in State v. Allen, 95-1754 (La.9/5/96), -23 , has stated: Therefore, when a defendant uses all of his peremptory challenges, a trial judge’s erroneous ruling depriving him of one of his peremptory challenges constitutes a substantial violation of his constitutional and statutory rights, requiring reversal of the con *532 viction and sentence.
State v. Anderson 996 So. 2d 973 La. 2008
This Court in State *996 v. Allen, 95-1754 (La.9/5/96), -23 , has stated: Therefore, when a defendant uses all of his peremptory challenges, a trial judge's erroneous ruling depriving him of one of his peremptory challenges constitutes a substantial violation of his constitutional and statutory rights, requiring reversal of the conviction and sentence.
State v. Campbell 983 So. 2d 810 La. 2008
220 , 145 L.Ed.2d 185 (1999), quoting State v. Allen, XXXX-XXXX (La.9/5/96), (internal citation omitted).
State v. Pinion 968 So. 2d 131 La. 2007
substantial basis for denying a defense cause to the juror, even assuming that the challenge had been made but not preserved in the record; remaining unrecorded bench conferences involved evidentiary matters that were otherwise addressed in the appeal, or involved matters of no discernible impact for which the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice); State v. Allen, 95-1754, p. 11 (La.9/5/96), (failure to record arguments at the bench concerning some of the defense peremptory challenges harml
State v. Draughn 950 So. 2d 583 La. 2007
220 , 145 L.Ed.2d 185 (1999), quoting State v. Allen, XXXX-XXXX (La.9/5/96), (internal citation omitted).
State v. Hopkins 908 So. 2d 1265 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
State v. Frank, 99-0553 (La.1/17/01), ; State v. Allen, 95-1754 (La.9/5/96), .
State v. Divers 889 So. 2d 335 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
State v. Allen, 95-1754 (La.9/5/96), .
Dr. Ulka Ramelow v. State of La., Board of Trustees, McNeese State Univ. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Ramelow v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, UNIV. OF LA. 870 So. 2d 415 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
State v. Allen, 95-1754 (La.9/5/96), .
State v. Bradley 867 So. 2d 31 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
State v. Allen, 95-1754 (La.9/5/96); .
State v. George 855 So. 2d 861 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
State v. Allen, 95-1754 (La.09/05/96), ; (La.App.
State v. Alsay 847 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
State v. Allen, 95-1754 (La.9/5/96)
State v. Williams 846 So. 2d 22 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State v. Allen, 95-1754, p. 14 (La.9/5/96), ; State v. Richthofen, 01-500, p. 30 *28 (La.App.
State v. Allen 844 So. 2d 1029 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
State v. Allen, 95-1754 (La.9/5/96), .
State v. Handy 828 So. 2d 1207 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
See State v. Allen, 95-1754 (La.9/5/96), ; State v. Dank, 99-0390 (La.App.
State v. Boatner 844 So. 2d 847 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
State v. Allen, 95-1754, p. 11 (La.9/5/96), .
State v. Graham 820 So. 2d 1101 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
State v. Allen, 95-1754 (La.9/5/96); .
State v. Plaisance 811 So. 2d 1172 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
State v. Allen, 95-1754 (La.9/5/96), .
State v. Butler 812 So. 2d 120 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
State v. Allen, 95-1754 (La.9/5/96), .
State v. Thompson 806 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
In State v. Allen, 95-1754, p. 6 (La.9/5/96), , the Supreme Court stated: This court has considered this issue and determined that “it is the circumstances indicating the intent to effect an extended restraint on the liberty of the accused, rather than the precise timing of an officer’s statements: ‘You are under arrest,’ that are determinative of when an ar