Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Rodman, 23 So. 2d 204.
- State of Louisiana v. Dionte Bracken La. 2025
-
State of Louisiana Versus Lanard A. Lavigne
La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
Governor, 331 So.2d at 453 ( So.2d 204 (1945)); State v. Seals, 135 La.
-
State of Louisiana Versus Argentina Mesa
La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2019
(Governor, 331 So.2d at 453 ( So.2d 204 (1945)); State v. Seals, 135 La.
- Trans-Global Alloy v. First Nat. Bank 583 So. 2d 443 La. 1991
- State v. Collier 522 So. 2d 584 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
-
Distinguished
State v. Alexander
430 So. 2d 621
La. 1983
The judge distinguishes the case cited by the defense in its motion for a new trial and its brief to this Court, , (1945), by noting that in Rodman , the jurors had emphatically stated that it was impossible for them to reach a verdict.
- State v. Schamburge 344 So. 2d 997 La. 1977
-
Distinguished
State v. Rudolph
332 So. 2d 806
La. 1976
In this respect, , (1945) relied upon by defendant.
-
State v. Governor
331 So. 2d 443
La. 1976
(1945); State v. Seals, 135 La.
-
State v. Nicholson
315 So. 2d 639
La. 1975
Although the language of the supplemental instructions was not expressly coercive, , 23 So.
-
State v. McQueen
308 So. 2d 752
La. 1975
844 , (1961); , (1945); State v. Guidry, 169 La.
-
State v. Green
282 So. 2d 461
La. 1973
(Jury again retired to deliberate.)" , (1945): "It is well settled that, when the court is informed by a jury that they cannot agree, it is not error for the court to impress upon them the importance of the case, urge them to come to an agreement, and send them back for further deliberation; for the question of the discharge of the jury beca
-
State v. Mims
267 So. 2d 570
La. 1972
1096 , 25 L.Ed.2d 271 (1969); , (1945); State v. Bischoff, 146 La.
-
State v. Hingle
139 So. 2d 205
La. 1962
832 ; , ; State v. George, 218 La.
-
State v. George
48 So. 2d 265
La. 1950
“ * * * it is the con viction, under the -laws of any other state or of the United States or any foreign government or country, of a crime which, if committed in this state, would be a felony, which makes a defendant subject to the provisions of the act * * *, provided, of course, that such individual