Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State ex rel. D.J., 817 So. 2d 26.

25 citing documents.

State of Louisiana in the Interest of D.D. La. 2025
State of Louisiana v. Jordan D. Johnson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
5/14/02), and State ex rel.
State of Louisiana in the Interest of N.S. . La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
5/14/02), (citation omitted).
State of Louisiana in the Interest of D.T. La. 2020
In re State In Interest of N.J. 275 So. 3d 267 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
5/14/02), , 29 (citation omitted); State in Interest of R.V., 2011-138, p. 10 (La.
State ex rel. M.B. 217 So. 3d 555 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. In the Interest of K.S. 188 So. 3d 1113 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
D.J., 01-2149 (La.5/14/02), .
State ex rel. J.D. 154 So. 3d 726 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967); State in the Interest of D.J., 2001-2149, p. 10 (La.5/14/02), , 30.
State ex rel. J.T. 94 So. 3d 847 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Our decision in State in the Interest of D.J.[, 01-2149 (La.5/14/02), ] buttresses a determination here that courts should accord identical treatment to juvenile as well as adult offenders under the circumstances of the present case....
State ex rel. J.S. 73 So. 3d 431 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
D.J., 01-2149 (La.05/14/02), .
State Ex Rel. Js 73 So. 3d 431 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
D.J., 01-2149 (La.05/14/02), .
State Ex Rel. Tc 35 So. 3d 1088 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
D.J., 2001-2149, p. 11 n. 10 (La.5/14/02), , 33 n. 10.
State ex rel. T.C. 35 So. 3d 1088 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
D.J., 2001-2149, p. 11 n. 10 (La.5/14/02), , 33 n. 10.
State v. Jefferson 26 So. 3d 112 La. 2009
rmination that due process does not afford a juvenile the right to a jury trial in a delinquency proceeding, due to the fact that “there remains a great disparity in the severity of penalties faced by a juvenile charged with delinquency and an adult defendant charged with the same crime.” Brown , 03-2788 at 18, 879 So.2d at 1288 (quoting State in the Interest of D.J., 01-2149, p. 10 (La.5/14/02), ).
State ex rel. A.J. 27 So. 3d 247 La. 2009
D.J., 01-2149 (La.5/14/02), , rejected the claim that juvenile delinquency adjudications were fundamentally unfair because the proceedings are conducted without a jury.
In Re State Ex Rel. AJ 27 So. 3d 247 La. 2009
D.J., 01-2149 (La.5/14/02), , rejected the claim that juvenile delinquency adjudications were fundamentally unfair because the proceedings are conducted without a jury.
State in the Interest of J.E. T. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967);2 State in the Interest of D.J., 01-2149, p. 10 (La.5/14/02)
State ex rel. J.E.T. 10 So. 3d 1264 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967); 2 State in the Interest of D.J., 01-2149, p. 10 (La.5/14/02), , 30.
State Ex Rel. Jet 10 So. 3d 1264 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967); [2] State in the Interest of D.J., 01-2149, p. 10 (La.5/14/02), , 30.
In the Interest of Jm 986 So. 2d 254 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
State ex rel. B.J. 906 So. 2d 392 La. 2005
art. 493.1 simply has no application in a juvenile proceeding.” State in the Interest of B.J., 04-1712 at 4 (citing State in the Interest of D.J., 01-2149 (La.5/14/02), ); (total punishment of more than six months imprisonment in the case of several misdemeanors joined in a single prosecution determines the right to a jury trial).
State ex rel. E.D.C. 903 So. 2d 571 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
D.J., 01-2149 (La.5/14/02), .
State v. Brown 879 So. 2d 1276 La. 2004
[5] 01-2149 (La.5/14/02), .
State v. Terrick 857 So. 2d 1153 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967); State in the Interest of D.J., 01-2149, p. 10 (La.5/14/02), , 30.
State v. Brown 853 So. 2d 8 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
See State in the Interest of D.J., 01-KA-2149 (La.5/14/02), .