Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Carter, 779 So. 2d 125.

25 citing documents.

State of Louisiana in the Interest of R.B. Vs. La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
App. 4 Cir. 1/24/01), ).
State of Louisiana v. Travon D. Manuel La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
State of Louisiana v. Hugh Gilliam La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
App. 4 Cir. 1/21/01), ).
State v. Gabriel 262 So. 3d 345 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Butler 162 So. 3d 455 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Spencer 151 So. 3d 816 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Williams 137 So. 3d 832 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 1/24/01), (when reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, an appellate court is not limited to evidence adduced at the hearing on the motion to suppress; it may also consider evidence given at trial.)
State v. Warner 137 So. 3d 715 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 1/24/01) , , 145: “Generally, ‘there is no prejudice and severance is not required if the facts of each offense are not complex, and there is little likelihood that the jury will be confused by the evidence of more than one crime,’ ” Id.
State v. Santos-Castro 120 So. 3d 933 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Cooper 120 So. 3d 844 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
4 Cir. 1/24/01) , , this Court stated: “Generally, ‘there is no prejudice and severance is not required if the facts of each offense are not complex, and there is little likelihood that the jury will be confused by the evidence of more than one crime,’ ” (La.App.
State v. Gilmore 156 So. 3d 46 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
4 Cir. 1/24/01), , writ denied, 01-903 (La.2/1/02), (citation omitted), (where this Court held when reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, an appellate court is not limited to evidence adduced at the hearing on the motion to suppress; it may also consider any pertinent evidence given at trial of t
State v. Hugle 104 So. 3d 598 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
4 Cir. 1/24/01) , , (La.App.
State v. Robinson 81 So. 3d 90 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
4 Cir. 1/24/01), (citing State v. Banks, 96-652, 96-653, p. 12 (La.App.
State v. Green 84 So. 3d 573 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
4 Cir. 1/24/01) , , where this court found no error in the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress one-on-one identifications made by five armed robbery/attempted armed robbery victims defendant allegedly victimized in three different incidents within less than one hour.
State ex rel. C.J. 60 So. 3d 46 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
4 Cir. 1/24/01), , unit denied, 01-0903 (La.2/1/02), (citing State v. Banks, 96-652, 96-653, p. 12 (La.App.
State v. Lomax 35 So. 3d 396 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
4 Cir. 1/24/01) , , where this court stated: “Generally, ‘there is no prejudice and severance is not required if the facts of each offense are not complex, and there is little likelihood that the jury will be confused by the evidence of more than one crime,’ ” (La.App.
State v. Nix 987 So. 2d 855 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
App. 4 Cir. 1/24/01), , this Court stated: “Generally, ‘there is no prejudice and severance is not required if the facts of each offense are not complex, and there is little likelihood that the jury will be confused by the evidence of more than one crime,’ ” (LaApp.
State v. Lewis 885 So. 2d 641 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
4 Cir. 1/24/01) , , which involved a fact situation very similar to the instant one.
State v. Ashford 878 So. 2d 798 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
4 Cir. 1/24/01) , , which involved a fact situation very similar to the instant one.
State v. Ford 867 So. 2d 835 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
State v. Lebreton 859 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
4 Cir. 1/24/01) , , (La.App.
State v. Haynes 847 So. 2d 653 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
State v. Grainer 834 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
4 Cir. 1/24/01) , , (La.App.
State v. Porche 819 So. 2d 1122 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
4 Cir. 1/24/01) , , (La.App.
State v. Singleton 801 So. 2d 1150 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
4 Cir. 1/24/01) , , this court held that whether a motion to sever should be granted rests within the sound discretion of the trial court whose decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of that discretion.