DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Henry, 3 So. 2d 104.

34 citing documents.

  • State v. Clark 325 So. 2d 802 La. 1976
    Juries, § 275, p. 1042; , ; State v. Thornhill, 188 La.
  • State v. Conrad 304 So. 2d 318 La. 1974
  • State v. Bowen 292 So. 2d 197 La. 1974
  • State v. Corbin 285 So. 2d 234 La. 1973
    1094 , (1971); , (1941).
  • State v. Taylor 282 So. 2d 491 La. 1973
  • DeSalvo v. Rizza 272 So. 2d 27 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
    In criminal cases this argument has been upheld, nullifying the verdict; , (1941).
  • State v. McCauley 272 So. 2d 335 La. 1973
    (1941), citing State v. McCoy, 109 La.
  • State v. Harper 257 So. 2d 381 La. 1972
    3 So.2d *719 104 ; State v. Morris, 222 La.
  • State v. Shaffer 257 So. 2d 121 La. 1971
  • State v. Square 244 So. 2d 200 La. 1971
  • State v. Simpson 175 So. 2d 255 La. 1965
  • State v. Simpson 175 So. 2d 255 La. 1965
  • State v. Eubanks 124 So. 2d 543 La. 1960
    633 ; , and State v. Johnson, 198 La.
  • State v. Bickham 107 So. 2d 458 La. 1958
    State v. Morris, 222 La.
  • State v. Stahl 107 So. 2d 670 La. 1958
    633 ; , and State v. Johnson, 198 La.
  • State v. Faciane 99 So. 2d 333 La. 1957
    See, , , and State v. Smith, 216 La.
  • State v. Peltier 86 So. 2d 693 La. 1956
    s here, we said: " * * * Thus it may be seen that the extent of counsel’s right to examine jurors on their voir dire is left in the sound discretion of the trial judge; and it is the settled jurisprudence of this Court that questions which have for their evident purpose to have jurors indicate in advance what their decision will be under a certain state of facts are not pertinent, , , * * * ” In the Washington case [ 225 La.
  • State v. Swails 76 So. 2d 523 La. 1954
    and State v. Wideman, 218 La.
  • State v. Washington 74 So. 2d 200 La. 1954
    and State v. Wideman, 218 La.
  • State v. Washington 74 So. 2d 200 La. 1954
    and State v. Wideman, 218 La.
  • State v. Michel 74 So. 2d 207 La. 1954
  • State v. Michel 74 So. 2d 207 La. 1954
  • State v. Morris 62 So. 2d 649 La. 1952
    Thus it may be seen that the extent of counsel’s right to examine jurors on their voir diré is left in the sound discretion of the trial judge; and it is the settled jurisprudence of this Court that questions which have for their evident purpose to have jurors indicate in advance what their decision will be under a certain state of facts are not pertinent, , , nor are hypothetical questions or questions of law, which call for prejudgment of any- supposed case on the facts, State v. Smith, 216 La
  • State v. Oliphant 56 So. 2d 846 La. 1952
    To the same effect, see State v. McCoy, supra; State v. Guillory, supra, and State *852 v. Henry, , .
  • State v. Oliphant 56 So. 2d 846 La. 1952
    If, in the formation of the jury, the prisoner has ex *506 hausted the twelve challenges, hut one has been used substantially under legal duress, he is, in law, to be held as having really been given the privileges of only eleven peremptory challenges, and his statutory right has been invaded.” To the same effect, see State v. McCoy, supra; State v. Guillory, supra, , .
  • State v. Wideman 51 So. 2d 96 La. 1951
  • State v. Ross 47 So. 2d 559 La. 1950
    633 ; , and State v. Johnson, 198 La.
  • State v. Smith 45 So. 2d 617 La. 1950
  • Henry v. Reid 10 So. 2d 681 La. 1942
    910 ; Id., , ; and Id., 200 La.
  • State v. Henry 9 So. 2d 215 La. 1942
  • State v. Doucet 5 So. 2d 894 La. 1942
    375 ; , ; State v. Hutton, 198 La.
  • State v. Breedlove 7 So. 2d 221 La. 1941
    prive the defendant unlawfully of one of his peremptory challenges allowed by law is as wrong as it would be to compel defendant to accept an incompetent juror when all peremptory challenges are gone.” That rule stated in State v. McCoy and restated in State v. Guillory was declared to be “the established rule”, less than six months ago, in the most recent decision oa the subject, , , thus: “The established rule is that: ‘Where,, in a criminal prosecution, a challenge for cause is improperly ove
  • State v. Scott 3 So. 2d 545 La. 1941
    handed down by this Court on May 26, 1941, we reviewed the question here presented and arrived at the conclusion that a juror cannot be committed in advance of the introduction of testimony as to the weight he would give to it.
  • State v. Johnson 3 So. 2d 556 La. 1941
    where this Court approved a ruling of the trial judge permitting the introduction in evidence of photographs of the body of the deceased where it lay on the ground near a haystack in a pasture, for the purpose of showing the position of the body, the scene of the crime, and the place of the penetration of the bullet