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. Alexander, 40 So. 2d 232.

22 citing documents.

  • Criticized State of Louisiana v. Asa Bentley AKA - Asa N. Bentley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    This Court has recognized as a matter of well-settled law that the prosecutor has the right to “press upon the jury any view of the case arising out of the evidence—the Supreme Court is bound to credit jurors with common intelligence, conscientiousness, and sense of duty.” So.2d 232, 234 (La.1949).
  • Criticized State v. Bentley 182 So. 3d 1269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    This Court has recognized as a matter of well-settled law that the prosecutor has the right to “press upon the jury any view of the case arising out of the evidence — the Supreme Court-is bound to credit jurors with common intelligence, conscientiousness, and sense of duty.”
  • Criticized State of Louisiana v. David Caleb Fontenot La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    1/17/01), the supreme court stated as follows: This Court has recognized as a matter of well-settled law that the prosecutor has the right to “press upon the jury any view of the case arising out of the evidence—the Supreme Court is bound to credit jurors with common intelligence, conscientiousness, and sense of duty.” So.2d 232, 234 (La.1949).
  • Criticized State v. Fontenot 160 So. 3d 609 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    as stated in State v. Gomez, 00-566 (La.1/17/01), , the supreme court stated as follows: This Court has recognized as a matter of well-settled law that the prosecutor has the right to “press upon the jury any view of the case arising out of the evidence — the Supreme Court is bound to credit jurors with common intelligence, conscientiousness, and sense of duty.”
  • State v. Simonson 163 So. 3d 37 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    4 Cir. 1/31/01), ( , (1949)).
  • State of Louisiana v. Mary Henderson Trahan La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    preme court stated: This Court has recognized as a matter of well-settled law that the prosecutor has the right to “press upon the jury any view of the case arising out of the evidence–the Supreme Court is bound to credit jurors with common intelligence, conscientiousness, and sense of duty.” So.2d 232, 234 (La.1949).
  • Criticized State v. Trahan 69 So. 3d 1240 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    87 , 145 L.Ed.2d 74 , superceded by statute on other grounds, the supreme court stated: This Court has recognized as a matter of well-settled law that the prosecutor has the right to “press upon the jury any view of the case arising out of the evidence — the Supreme Court is bound to credit jurors with common intelligence, conscientiousness, and sense of duty.”
  • State of Louisiana v. Robert S. Willis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    has recognized as a matter of well-settled law that the prosecutor has the right to “press upon the jury 39 any view of the case arising out of the evidence--the Supreme Court is bound to credit jurors with common intelligence, conscientiousness, and sense of duty.” So.2d 232, 234 (La.1949).
  • Criticized State v. Willis 915 So. 2d 365 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
  • Criticized State v. Williams 778 So. 2d 1232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    *1237 This Court has recognized as a matter of well-settled law that the prosecutor has the right to “press upon the jury any view of the case arising out of the evidence — the Supreme Court is bound to credit jurors with common intelligence, conscientiousness, and sense of duty.”
  • Criticized State v. Frost 727 So. 2d 417 La. 1998
  • State v. Moore 432 So. 2d 209 La. 1983
  • State v. Green 343 So. 2d 149 La. 1977
    195 , (1969); , (1949); State v. Berry, 50 La.Ann.
  • State v. Phanor 325 So. 2d 579 La. 1976
    Likewise, , (1949), we held that intoxication which had not reached the point of mania did not affect the admissibility of an otherwise voluntary confession.
  • State v. Green 282 So. 2d 461 La. 1973
    See State v. Manuel, supra, , (1949).
  • State v. Jones 268 So. 2d 216 La. 1972
    (1949); 2 Wharton’s Criminal Evidence, 12th Ed., Sect.
  • State v. Manuel 217 So. 2d 369 La. 1968
    2 Wharton’s Criminal Evidence § 388, p. 122 (12th ed. 1955); 23 C.J.S.
  • State v. Cortez 129 So. 2d 792 La. 1961
    15 :- 381, 15:382, that while counsel in arguing the case to the jury on both the law and the evidence must refrain from any appeal to prejudice, he may, nevertheless draw such conclusions or inferences as the evidence may warrant; further, that denunciation based upon the evidence is not objectionable.” , , 234: “It is a well-settled principle that as a matter of law, the prosecuting officer has the right to press upon the jury any view of the case arising out of the evidence — the Supreme Cour
  • State v. Johnson 86 So. 2d 108 La. 1956
    the following was said: "The jurisprudence of the State is well-settled to the effect that a confession must be free and voluntary in order to be admitted in evidence against the defendant in a criminal prosecution; that it is the duty of the State to prove that the confession is free and volunta
  • State v. Johnson 86 So. 2d 108 La. 1956
    A. That’s all.” , , the following was *483 said: “The jurisprudence of the State is well-settled to the effect that a confession must be free and voluntary in order to be admitted in evidence against the defendant in a criminal prosecution; that it is the duty of the State to prove that the confession is free and vo
  • State v. Labat 75 So. 2d 333 La. 1954
    this court said: “It is a well-settled principle that as a matter of law, the prosecuting officer has the right to press upon the jury any view of the case arising out of the evidence — the Supreme Court is bound to credit jurors with common intelligence, conscientiousness, and sense of duty.
  • State v. Alleman 51 So. 2d 83 La. 1950