DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Cook, 39 So. 2d 898.

23 citing documents.

  • State v. Howard 505 So. 2d 228 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • State v. McGraw 366 So. 2d 1278 La. 1979
    201 , (1954); , (1949); State v. Taylor, 173 La.
  • State v. Daigle 344 So. 2d 1380 La. 1977
  • State v. Vale 215 So. 2d 811 La. 1968
    1063 , , “Severance is not a matter of right but rather one that rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge ‘whose ruling will not be interfered with, unless manifestly erroneous and injurious to the accused.’ , .” We think the observation of this court in the case of State v. La Rocca, 168 La.
  • State v. Bonner 210 So. 2d 319 La. 1968
    Thus, it may be seen that severance is not a matter of right but rather one that rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge, ‘whose ruling will not be interfered with, unless manifestly erroneous and injurious to the accused.’ , .
  • State v. Plaisance 210 So. 2d 323 La. 1968
    417 ; , ; State v. Basco, 216 La.
  • State v. Pebworth 208 So. 2d 530 La. 1968
    Thus, it may be seen that severance is not a matter of right but rather one that rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge, “whose ruling will not be interfered with, unless manifestly erroneous and injurious to accused.” , .
  • State v. Gregoire 192 So. 2d 114 La. 1966
    111 , ; , ; State v. Walker, 229 La.
  • State v. Progue 144 So. 2d 352 La. 1962
    and the numerous cases therein cited.
  • State v. MacK 144 So. 2d 363 La. 1962
  • State v. Scott 141 So. 2d 389 La. 1962
    State v. Palmer, 227 La.
  • State v. Fulghum 138 So. 2d 569 La. 1962
    State v. Palmer, 227 La.
  • State v. Rogers 132 So. 2d 819 La. 1961
    See, , ; State v. Hilliard, 227 La.
  • State v. Domino 102 So. 2d 227 La. 1958
    State v. Hilliard, supra.
  • State v. Smith 99 So. 2d 8 La. 1958
    State v. Palmer, 227 La.
  • State v. Edwards 94 So. 2d 674 La. 1957
    State v. Palmer, 227 La.
  • State v. Kennedy 95 So. 2d 301 La. 1957
  • State v. Peart 93 So. 2d 920 La. 1957
    State v. Palmer, 227 La.
  • State v. Walker 85 So. 2d 497 La. 1956
    upon reviewing many authorities we said: “ ‘The question of the admissibility of a confession is for the judge, its effect for the jury’, * * * and ‘whether a sufficient basis was laid for the admission of an alleged voluntary confession is a question of fact upon which the ruling of the trial ju
  • State v. Palmer 80 So. 2d 374 La. 1955
    estated our fundamental law regarding the admissibility of confessions in the following language: “It is well settled in the law of this state that, before a confession can be introduced in evidence, it must be affirmatively shown that it was free and voluntary and not made under the influence of fear, duress, intimidation, menaces, threats, inducement, or promises.” , , wherein we reviewed many authorities, we said, quoting: “ ‘The question of the admissibility of a confession is for the judge,
  • State v. Hilliard 78 So. 2d 835 La. 1955
    promises.” It is also well settled that “ ‘The question of the admissibility of a confession i's for the judge, its effect for the jury’ •* * * and ‘whether a sufficient basis was laid for the admission of an alleged voluntary confession is a question of fact upon which the ruling of the trial judge will not be disturbed unless clearly-against the prejponderance of the evidence.’ ” , , and the authorities therein cited.
  • State v. Swails 76 So. 2d 523 La. 1954
    417 ; , and State v. Basco, 216 La.
  • State v. Winfield 62 So. 2d 258 La. 1952