Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Carter, 19 So. 2d 41.

17 citing documents.

State v. Crochet 931 So. 2d 1083 La. 2006
it was necessary that two separate indictments be returned if the state intended to prosecute this defendant for each homicide."); , (1944); Ralph Slovenko, The Accusation in Louisiana Criminal Law, 32 Tul.L.Rev.
State v. Thomas 470 So. 2d 413 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
876 , -11 (1967); , -45 (1944).
State, in Interest of Giangrosso 395 So. 2d 709 La. 1981
(1944); State v. Lewis , above.
State v. Brevelle 270 So. 2d 852 La. 1972
(1944), the conviction was reversed under this court's conclusion that to allow the State's witnesses to remain in the courtroom while defendant's witnesses were excluded under sequestration constituted "[unquestionably] a distinct advantage to the state and a disadvantage to the defendant".
State v. Giangrosso 268 So. 2d 224 La. 1972
State v. McAllister 218 So. 2d 305 La. 1969
See, , ; and State v. Lewis, 250 La.
State v. Champagne 206 So. 2d 518 La. 1968
of in this appeal, that is, that the trial judge erroneously overruled defense motion for a mistrial, which is based on the fact that while the prosecuting attorney was making his closing argument to the jury four police officers who had been subpoenaed as witnesses and placed under the rule were present in the courtroom, is without merit, for, , , “The purpose of removing the witnesses from the courtroom to a position where they could neither hear nor see what was taking place in the trial, is
State v. Lewis 199 So. 2d 907 La. 1967
is controlling in the case at bar.
State v. McAllister 150 So. 2d 557 La. 1963
counsel for the defendant argue that because there were Deputies available for courtroom duty who took no part in the investigation and the District Attorney was present in the courtroom, the action of the trial judge in excluding the Deputies and the Assistant District Attorney from the rule amounted
State v. Davis 132 So. 2d 866 La. 1961
State v. Ferguson 124 So. 2d 558 La. 1960
State v. Palmer 80 So. 2d 374 La. 1955
Defendant cites and relies on Article 371, Code of Criminal Procedure, supra, , .
State v. McDonald 70 So. 2d 123 La. 1953
State v. Ysasi 64 So. 2d 213 La. 1953
State v. Smith 45 So. 2d 617 La. 1950
He cites Article 371, , .
State v. Gros 23 So. 2d 24 La. 1945
However, counsel contends that since our original opinion in this case was rendered we, , , adopted a rule that in effect overrules our previous disposition of Bill of Exceptions No. 4y2 and that, in the interest of justice, we should correct and set aside this previous erroneous ruling.
State v. Barton 22 So. 2d 183 La. 1945
decided by this court on June 26, 1944.