Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Loyd, 689 So. 2d 1321.

19 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Jeffrey Clark 220 So. 3d 583 La. 2016
2/13/97), (“Louisiana’s instruction is an even-handed one which accurately informs jurors that a death sentence as well as a life sentence remains subject to executive revision.”).
State v. Pierre 192 So. 3d 140 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
In State v. Loyd, 96-1805, p. 11 (La.2/13/97), , the Louisiana Supreme Court emphasized that “[w]hen dealing with criminal (as well as civil) procedural rules, the Court applies the ‘common sense notion’ that the applicability of procedural changes depends on the posture of the case.
State v. Bishop 68 So. 3d 1197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
See State v. Loyd, 96-1805, pp. 12-13 (La.2/13/97), ; -36 (La.1977), abrogated on other grounds, State ex rel.
State v. Campbell 983 So. 2d 810 La. 2008
The defendant requests that this Court reconsider its ruling in State v. Loyd, 96-1805 (La.2/13/97), , which upheld as constitutional the application of LSA-.C.Cr.P.
State v. Caston 914 So. 2d 122 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
See State v. Loyd, 96-1805, p. 6 (La.2/13/97); (stating that the Ex Post Facto Clause prohibits "increasing punishment after the commission of the crime") and State v. Bailey, 28,822 (La.App.
State v. Carmouche 872 So. 2d 1020 La. 2003
See State v. Loyd, 96-1805 (La.2/13/97), (commutation instruction mandated by La.
State v. Wright 834 So. 2d 974 La. 2002
See State v. Loyd, 96-1805 (La.2/13/97), (commutation instruction mandated by La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Ball 824 So. 2d 1089 La. 2002
In State v. Loyd, 96-1805 (La.2/13/97), (La.
State v. Deal 802 So. 2d 1254 La. 2001
See State v. Loyd, 96-1805 (La.2/13/97), (commutation instruction mandated by La.C.Cr.P.
State Ex Rel. Olivieri v. State 779 So. 2d 735 La. 2001
Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), , 1201 and State v. Loyd, 96-1805 (La.2/13/97), , this Court recognized that Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37 , 110 S.Ct.
State v. Hutchinson 764 So. 2d 1139 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
See, e.g., State v. Loyd, 96-1805 (La.2/13/97), ; State ex rel.
State v. Hoffman 768 So. 2d 542 La. 2000
Justice Johnson, writing for this court in State v. Loyd, 96-1805, p. 18 (La.2/13/97), , 1331 upheld La.Code Crim.
State v. Miller 757 So. 2d 744 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
See State v. Loyd, 96-1805, p. 6 *748 (La.2/13/97); (stating that the Ex Post Facto Clause prohibits "increasing punishment after the commission of the crime") and State v. Bailey, 28,822 (La.App.
State v. Leonard 758 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
See State v. Loyd, 96-1805 (La.2/13/97); .
State v. Thibodeaux 750 So. 2d 916 La. 1999
[1] Defendant claims that the detectives persuaded him to confess to raping and killing Crystal Champagne by suggesting facts of the crime to him during interrogation [2] See State v. Loyd, 96-1805 (La.2/13/97); for the proposition that a defendant has opportunity to present evidence concerning the frequency and extent of the use of clemency power.
State v. Wessinger 736 So. 2d 162 La. 1999
See State v. Loyd, 96-1805 (La.2/13/97), ("Louisiana's instruction is an even-handed one which accurately informs jurors that a death sentence as well as a life sentence remains subject to executive revision.").
State v. Delaughter 703 So. 2d 1364 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
California Department of Corrections, et al. v. Morales, supra ; State v. Loyd, 96-1805 (La.2/13/97), .
State v. Brumley 700 So. 2d 876 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
In State v. Loyd, 96-1805, p. 4, 9 (La.1997), 1326 , the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed ex post facto laws, explaining as follows: Article I, § 10 of the Constitution forbids the States from passing any “ex post facto Law.” California Department of Corrections, et al v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499 , 115 S.Ct.
State v. Rogers 691 So. 2d 70 La. 1997