Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Bass, 509 So. 2d 176.

14 citing documents.

State of Louisiana in the Interest of T.W.-d. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
The First Circuit emphasized that despite lacking explicit wording, the jury’s intention was undeniably clear, stating, “Only the magic words were omitted, which omissions take nothing away from the clarity of the jury’s intention.” (La.
State of Louisiana v. Ordesto Marando Toussaint La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Toussaint 94 So. 3d 62 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Zachary 973 So. 2d 176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
State of Louisiana v. Paul Olivier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
State v. Olivier 879 So. 2d 286 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
State of Louisiana v. Chet K. Whatley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
State v. Whatley 858 So. 2d 751 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
State v. Bates 859 So. 2d 841 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
He contends that this is error patent and that his conviction must be reversed and his sentence set aside, (La.App.
State v. Breaux 693 So. 2d 326 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
State v. Guidry 635 So. 2d 731 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
art. 464 & 465(A)(3); (La.App.
Distinguished State v. McLean 525 So. 2d 1251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Ainsworth 528 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
State v. James 517 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987