Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Chadbourne, 728 So. 2d 832.

21 citing documents.

State Of Louisiana v. Hillary Haniff La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2025
State Of Louisiana v. Jonathan Ray Harbin, Jr. La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
1/ 8/ 99), ( per curiam)), that burden ordinarily " requires the State to exercise due diligence in discovering the whereabouts of the defendant as well as taking appropriate steps to secure his presence for trial once it has found him."
State v. Reed 218 So. 3d 729 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Jones 144 So. 3d 1092 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Ordinarily, to satisfy its burden in establishing that an interruption or suspension of the prescriptive period has occurred, the State “must exercise due diligence in discovering the whereabouts of the defendant as well as in taking appropriate steps to secure his presence for trial once it has found him.” State v. Chad-bourne, 98-1998, p. 1 (La.1/8/99), (per curiam).
State v. Thomas 138 So. 3d 92 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
“This burden remains even where the prosecution has made numerous attempts at service and the defendant has moved out of the state’s jurisdiction.” Sorden, 09-1416, p. 13, 45 So.3d at 189 (citing State v. Chadbourne, 98-1998, p. 1 (La.1/8/99), (per curiam); Estill, 614 So.2d at 710 ).
State v. Gregory 137 So. 3d 663 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See State v. Chadboume, 98-1998 (La.1/8/99), (per curiam); (per curiam).
State of Louisiana v. John Wesley Perry, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
This heavy burden “requires the State to exercise due diligence in discovering the whereabouts of the defendant as well as taking appropriate steps to secure his presence for trial once it has found him.” State v. Chadbourne, 98-1998, p. 1 (La.1/8/99)
State v. Perry 127 So. 3d 1064 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
This heavy burden “requires the State to exercise due diligence in discovering the whereabouts of the defendant as well as taking appropriate steps to secure his presence for trial once it has found him.” State v. Chadbourne, 98-1998, p. 1 (La.1/8/99), .
State v. Andres 100 So. 3d 953 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Chadbourne, 98-1998 (La.1/8/99), .
State v. Williams 95 So. 3d 554 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
See State v. Bobo, 03-2362, pp. 4-5, (La.4/30/04), -56 (quoting State v. Chadboume, 98-1998, p. 1 (La.1/8/99), )(noting that “ ‘[t]his heavy burden “requires the State to exercise due diligence in discovering the whereabouts of the defendant as well as taking appropriate steps to secure ' his presence for trial once it has found him.” ’ ”) For these reasons, I would | ¡¡find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
State v. Green 72 So. 3d 949 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
art. 578].” State v. Chadbourne, 98-1998, p. 1 (La.1/8/99), (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
State v. Peters 52 So. 3d 233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Chadbourne, 98-1998 (La.1/8/99)
State v. Sorden 45 So. 3d 181 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Chadbourne, 98-1998 (La.1/8/99), ; Carcamo, supra, .
State of Louisiana v. Milton Anthony Wilks La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
art.] 578.” State v. Chadbourne, 98-1998, p. 1 (La.1/8/99), (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
State v. Romar 985 So. 2d 722 La. 2008
State v. Chadbourne, 98-1998, p. 1 (La.1/8/99), (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
State v. Smith 982 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
State v. Chadbourne, 98-1998 (La.1/8/99), (per curiam); State v. Breaux, 920 So.2d at 277 .
State v. Breaux 920 So. 2d 274 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Chadbourn, 98-1998 (La.1/8/99), .
State v. Bobo 872 So. 2d 1052 La. 2004
State v. Chadbourne, 98-1998, p. 1 (La.1/8/99), .
State v. Quinones 864 So. 2d 824 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
In support of his argument that the State failed to use due diligence in locating the Defendant, he cites State v. Chadbourne, 98-1998, p. 2 (La.1/8/99), .
State v. Carcamo 860 So. 2d 220 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State v. Chadbourne, 98-1998 (La.1/8/99), ; (La.
State v. Buckley 839 So. 2d 1193 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
In State v. Chadbourne, 98-1998 (La.1/8/99), , the supreme court squarely stated the prosecution's burden under Article 578 includes proving it searched for a non-appearing defendant.