Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Hoffman, 768 So. 2d 542.

151 citing documents.

State v. Small 147 So. 3d 1274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
We do “‘not sit to second-guess strategic and tactical choices made by trial counsel.’ ” State v. Hoffman, 98-3118, p. 40 (La.4/11/00), ().
State v. Simms 143 So. 3d 1258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Hoffman, 98-3118, p. 45 (La.4/11/00), ; State v. Martin, 93-0285, p. 18 (La.10/17/94)
State v. Cope 137 So. 3d 151 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
case through media or conversations; Clark, supra, in which 62.9% claimed some exposure to the case; Frank, supra, where 97% of the venire had been exposed to some publicity; State v. Hoffman, 98-3118 (La.4/11/00), , cert, denied, 531 U.S |2 946, 121 S.Ct.
State v. Gregoire 143 So. 3d 503 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Hoffman, 98-3118 (La.4/11/00), , opinion supplemented by, 2000-1609 (La.6/14/00), (per curiam), cert, denied, 531 U.S. 946 , 121 S.Ct.
State v. Sparkman 136 So. 3d 98 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Specific intent to kill may be inferred from a defendant’s act of pointing a gun and firing at a person, State v. Hoffman, 98-3118 (La.4/11/00), , cert.
State v. Fielding 130 So. 3d 1052 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
State v. Hoffman, 1998-3118 (La.4/11/00), ; State v. Heard, supra.
State of Louisiana v. Brian Segura La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
4/11/00), (72 of 90 prospective jurors (80%) “had awareness of the case before trial”); State v. Connolly, 96- 1680, p. 5 (La.
State v. Segura 127 So. 3d 1034 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
sponded that they had “some exposure” to the case); Frank , 99-0553 at 16-17, 803 So.2d at 16-17 (110 of 113 venire members (97.3%) had been exposed to “some kind of publicity surrounding the case” while 89% of the prospective jurors indicated that they had been exposed to information about the case on more than one occasion or from multiple sources); State v. Hoffman, 98-3118, p. 9 (La.4/11/00), (72 of 90 prospective jurors (80%) “had awareness of the case before trial”); State v. Connolly, 96-
State v. Green 128 So. 3d 1172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Hoffman, 98-3118 (La.4/11/00); , cert.
State v. Pernell 127 So. 3d 18 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
“[I]nconse-quential omissions or slight inaccuracies do not require reversal.” State v. Hoffman, 98-3118, p. 49 (La.4/11/00), .
State v. Hollins 123 So. 3d 840 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Hoffman, 98-3118, p. 49 (La.4/11/00), .
State v. Lawrence 120 So. 3d 812 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
In State v. Hoffman, 98-3118 (La.4/11/00), , the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth the standard for determining whether a prosecutor’s remarks are so prejudicial as to warrant a new trial as follows: Louisiana jurisprudence on prosecuto-rial misconduct allows prosecutors wide latitude in choosing closing argument tactics.
State v. Alexander 118 So. 3d 1138 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Hoffman, 98-3118 (La.4/11/00), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Demarcus W. Law La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
and objections, questions, statements, and arguments of counsel.” State v. Hoffman, 98-3118, p. 50 (La.4/11/00)
State v. Law 110 So. 3d 1271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
and objections, questions, statements, and arguments of counsel.” State v. Hoffman, 98-3118, p. 50 (La.4/11/00), .
State v. Vedol 113 So. 3d 1119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Hoffman, 98-3118, p. 48 (La.4/11/00), , cert.
State v. Thompson 106 So. 3d 1102 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Hoffman, 98-3118 (La.4/11/00), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Cleveland Troy Bias La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State of Louisiana v. Jody D. Hamilton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
and objections, questions, statements, and arguments of counsel.” State v. Hoffman, 98-3118, p. 50 (La.4/11/00)
State v. Magee 103 So. 3d 285 La. 2012
sponded that they had “some exposure” to the case); Frank , 99-0553 at 16-17, 803 So.2d at 16-17 (110 of 113 venire members (97.3%) had been exposed to “some kind of publicity surrounding the case” while 89% of the prospective jurors indicated that they had been exposed to information about the case on more than one occasion or from multiple sources); State v. Hoffman, 98-3118, p. 9 (La.4/11/00), (72 of 90 prospective jurors (80%) “had awareness of the case before trial”); State v. Connolly, 96-
State of Louisiana v. Terrance L. Sinegal La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
and objections, questions, statements, and arguments of counsel.‖ State v. Hoffman, 98-3118, p. 50 (La.4/11/00)
State v. Sinegal 97 So. 3d 649 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
and objections, questions, statements, and arguments of counsel.” State v. Hoffman, 98-3118, p. 50 (La.4/11/00), .
State v. Higginbotham 122 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
State v. Hoffman, 98-3118 (La.4/11/00), .
State of Louisiana v. Marlon Roberson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Bannister 88 So. 3d 628 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Hoffman, 98-3118, p. 48 (La.4/11/00), , cert.
State v. Reed 88 So. 3d 601 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Hoffman, 98-3118, p. 48 (La.4/11/00), , cert.
State v. Cooks 81 So. 3d 932 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
from the act of pointing a gun and firing at a person in close proximity.” Lewis, 2009-1404, p. 5, 48 So.3d at 1076 (emphasis added) ( (“pointing and firing a gun at point-blank range supports an inference of specific intent to kill”); (“same”)); see also State v. Hoffman, 98-3118, p. 48 (La.4/11/00), .
State v. Rubens 83 So. 3d 30 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
In State v. Hoffman, 98-3118 (La.4/11/00), , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated, specifically as to the recordation of bench conferences: This court has never articulated a per se rule either requiring the recording of bench conferences or exempting them from the scope of La.Code Crim.
State v. Anderson 78 So. 3d 176 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. Hoffman, 98-3118 (La.4/11/00), , cert.
State v. McElveen 73 So. 3d 1033 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
See State v. Hoffman, 98-3118, p. 15 (La.4/11/00), -60 .
State v. Carter 75 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Hoffman, 98-3118 (La.4/11/00), , opinion supplemented, 00-1609 (La.6/14/00), , cert.
State v. Russell 73 So. 3d 991 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. Hoffman, 98-3118 (La.4/11/00), ; State v. Robinson, supra.
State of Louisiana v. Jonathan Edward Boyer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Boyer 56 So. 3d 1119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
See also State v. Hoffman, 98-3118 (La.4/11/00), , cert.
State v. Dressner 45 So. 3d 127 La. 2010
State v. Hoffman, 98-3118, pp. 33-34 (La.4/11/00), ; 34 State v. Hamilton, 92-1919, pp. 14-15 (La.9/5/96), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Daniel L. Pegues La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
2031, 2037, 44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975), State v. Hoffman, 98-3118 (La.4/11/00), cert.
State v. Pegues 43 So. 3d 1008 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
2031, 2037 , 44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975), State v. Hoffman, 98-3118 (La.4/11/00), , cert.
Tasha Tingle, Etc. v. American Home Assurance Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. Hoffman, 98-3118, (La.
Tingle v. American Home Assurance Co. 40 So. 3d 1169 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Hoffman, 98-3118, State v. Castleberry, 98-1388 (La.4/13/99), , cert.
State v. Trosclair 34 So. 3d 1167 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
4/11/00), , opinion supplemented by XXXX-XXXX (La.
Donald R. Alexander v. Ira M. Tate La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Alexander v. Tate 30 So. 3d 1122 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
See State v. Hoffman, 98-3118 (La.4/11/00), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Bryan Means La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
4/11/00), opinion supplemented, 00-1609 (La.
State v. Means 25 So. 3d 254 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
4/11/00), , opinion supplemented, 00-1609 (La.
State v. Bordelon 33 So. 3d 842 La. 2009
See, e.g., State v. Reeves, 06-2419 (La.5/5/09), ; State v. Hoffman, 98-3118 (La.4/11/00), ; State v. Connolly, 96-1680 (La.7/1/97), ; State v. Comeaux, 93-2729 (La.7/1/97), ; State v. Martin, 93-0285 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Bacardny Wayne George La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
4/11/00), opinion supplemented 00-1609 (La.
State v. George 19 So. 3d 614 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
In State v. Hoffman, 98-3118 (La.4/11/00), , opinion supplemented 00-1609 (La.6/14/00), , cert.
State v. Johnson 22 So. 3d 205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
In State v. Hoffman, 98-3118, p. 50 (La.4/11/00), -587 , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: This court has never articulated a per se rule either requiring the recording of bench conferences or exempting them from the scope of La.Code Crim.
State v. Lewis 16 So. 3d 385 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Hoffman, 98-3118, p. 48 (La.4/11/00), , opinion supplemented, 00-1609 (La.6/14/00), , cert.
State v. Addison 8 So. 3d 707 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
In State v. Hoffman, 98-3118 (La.4/11/00), , defendant contended his counsel was deficient, in part, for failing to object to photographs and failing to present DNA evidence.