Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Heidelberg, 45 So. 256.
- 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called), setting forth, in substance, the same objections, and specifically pleading thát Act No. 176 of 1908 had been repealed by Act No. 21 of 1910, , 52 South.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