Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Dauzart, 769 So. 2d 1206.

24 citing documents.

Distinguished State of Louisiana v. Jarvis Turner La. 2026
10/30/00), is distinguishable from the denial of a defendant’s right to testify by trial counsel, as in Hampton.
State of Louisiana v. Jarvis Turner La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
10/30/00), (citations omitted).
State of Louisiana v. Destiny Lacourse La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
10/30/00), (citations omitted).
State of Louisiana Versus Arthur Williams La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
10/30/00), (per curiam).
State of Louisiana v. William A. McDonough La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana v. Eddie Harrison La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
State of Louisiana v. Matthew Chester La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
State v. Latique 265 So. 3d 93 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
10/30/00), , and State v. Hampton , 00-522 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Elijah James Latique La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
10/30/00), and State v. Hampton, 00-522 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Robert Glen Coleman 188 So. 3d 174 La. 2016
10/30/00), this court discussed arbitrary application of this rule.
State v. Rumley 183 So. 3d 640 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Dauzart, 99-3471, p. 6-7 (La.10/30/00), -08 .
State v. Marzett 123 So. 3d 831 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Const, art. I, § 16; State v. Dauzart, 99-3471, pp. 6-7 (La.10/30/00), -08 (citing Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 49 , 107 S.Ct.
State v. Aulph 114 So. 3d 610 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
According to the supreme court in State v. Dauzart, 1999-3471 (La.10/30/00), , denial of the accused’s right to testify is not amenable to harmless error analysis.
State v. Alexander 118 So. 3d 1138 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
2704, 2708 , 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987); State v. Dauzart, 99-3471 (La.10/30/00), .
State v. Hall 108 So. 3d 188 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
2704 , 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987); State v. Dauzart, 99-3471 (La.10/30/00), .
State v. Andrews 61 So. 3d 121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Rather, he cites State v. Dauzart, 99-3471 (La.10/30/00), , seeming to quote language from the decision and represent it as a “standard.” However, the language is not a quote from DauzaH.
State v. Dauzart 960 So. 2d 1079 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
State v. Dauzart, 99-3471 (La.10/30/00), .
State v. Shaw 939 So. 2d 519 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
Id.; State v. Dauzart, 99-3471 (La.10/30/2000), .
State v. Jones 888 So. 2d 766 La. 2004
In recognizing that defense counsel as well as a trial judge, see State v. Dauzart, 99-3471 (La.10/30/00), , may violate a defendant’s constitutional fright to testify in his own defense by compelling him to remain silent, Hampton merely applied settled precedent existing at the time of relator’s trial and subsequent appeal.
State v. Darensbourg 871 So. 2d 533 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
State v. Dauzart, 99-3471 (La.10/30/00), ; cert.
State v. Dauzart 844 So. 2d 159 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State v. Dauzart, 99-3471 (La.10/30/00), .
State v. Thompson 825 So. 2d 552 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
In State v. Dauzart, 99-3471 (La.10/30/00), , the defendant originally indicated he did not want to testify.
State v. Hampton 818 So. 2d 720 La. 2002
State v. Dauzart, 99-3471 (La.10/30/00), (emphasis added).
State v. Sarrio 803 So. 2d 212 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
App 5 Cir. 11/30/99), -811 , writ granted, 99-3471 (La.6/2/00), , rev'd and remanded on other grounds (i.e., defendant's right to testify), 99-3471 (La.10/30/00), , was faced with a similar set of facts and found that the process of restricting access to the courthouse after 4:45 p.m.