Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Heidelberg, 45 So. 256.

18 citing documents.

State v. Brooks 294 So. 2d 503 La. 1974
State v. Carite 155 So. 2d 21 La. 1963
997 (1908); State v. *23 Heidelberg, , 45 So.
State v. Alleman 51 So. 2d 83 La. 1950
State v. Anderson 20 So. 2d 288 La. 1944
State v. Capaci 154 So. 419 La. 1934
4 , it is said: “We have no different degrees of murder in this state, but parties accused get all the benefit which would arise from grading the crime in the flexibility given to the punishment which is to be meted out in any given case, by allowing the jury, under a charge of murder, to bring in a verdict of guilty without capital punishment.” See, also, to the same effect; , 45 So.
State v. Disotell 158 So. 825 La. 1934
State v. Taylor 133 So. 349 La. 1931
State v. Pitre 125 So. 617 La. 1929
In the discipline of his court, he must be vested with the discretion to put an end to the unnecessary and prolonged examination of a witness; and, where there has been no injustice done to the defendant, we will not interfere with his ruling in such case.” , 45 So.
State v. Dreher 118 So. 85 La. 1928
State v. Brown 116 So. 588 La. 1928
State v. Reed 109 So. 414 La. 1926
State v. Cole 109 So. 505 La. 1926
“Except in extreme cases, the presumption is that the prejudicial effect on the jury of improper remarks made by counsel for the state is removéd by the instructions of the court to the jury to disregard the same.” , 45 So.
State v. Poole 100 So. 613 La. 1924
298 , this court said: “Except in extreme cases, the presumption is that the prejudicial effect on the jury of improper remarks made by counsel for the state was removed by the instructions of the court to the jury to disregard the same.” , 45 South.
State v. Smith 95 So. 707 La. 1923
State v. Horton 92 So. 298 La. 1922
“Except in extreme cases, the presumption is that the prejudicial effect on the jury of improper remarks made by counsel for the state was removed by the instructions of the court to the jury to disregard the same.” , 45 South.
State v. Oden 58 So. 351 La. 1912
State v. Kramer 54 So. 341 La. 1911
Before the court passed on the objections, the accused filed a motion in arrest (so called), setting forth, in substance, the same objections, and specifically pleading thát Act No. 176 of 1908 had been repealed by Act No. 21 of 1910, , 52 South.
State v. Benjamin 53 So. 847 La. 1910