Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Goff, 153 So. 3d 440.

18 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Dewayne Willie Watkins La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana Versus Viusqui J. Perez-Espinosa La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana v. Larry Delanta Gardner, Jr. La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2023
12/8/14), State v. White, 39,681 (La.
State of Louisiana Versus Terrell Nix La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana v. Stacey Glenn Wilhite La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana Versus Isaiah Doyle La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2021
State of Louisiana Versus Jared Diaz La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2021
State of Louisiana Versus Shineda N. Taylor La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2021
State of Louisiana Versus Teddy Chester La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2021
State Of Louisiana v. William Bottoms, Jr. La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
State v. Johnson 244 So. 3d 617 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
12/08/14), ("The correct inquiry is whether, assuming that the damaging potential of the cross-examination were fully realized, a reviewing court might nonetheless say that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.").
State ex rel. Cope v. State 222 So. 3d 707 La. 2017
State v. Norman 222 So. 3d 96 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
12/08/14), (“The correct inquiry is whether, assuming that the damaging potential of the cross-examination were fully realized, a reviewing court might nonetheless say that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”).
State v. Hust 214 So. 3d 174 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
State v. Billizone 215 So. 3d 360 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Wilson 196 So. 3d 614 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
State v. Cope, 48,739 (La.App.2d Cir.4/9/14), , writ denied, 2014-1008 (La.12/8/14), .
State v. Johnson 196 So. 3d 26 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986); State v. Robinson, 2001-0273 (La.5/17/02), ; State v. Cope, 48,739 (La.App.2d Cir.4/9/14), , writ denied, 2014-1008 (La.12/8/14), .
State v. Hernandez 177 So. 3d 342 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2015
5 Cir. 4/9/14) ; -70 , writs denied, 14-1015 (La.12/8/14); and 14-994 (La.12/8/14), , this Court found that while the defendant did not expressly waive the mandatory statutory delay between the trial court’s ruling on the motion for new trial and the sentencing, the defendant did not object to proceeding with sentencing or raise the trial judge’s failure to obse