Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite In re Grand Jury Subpoena of Doe, 403 So. 2d 652.

110 citing documents.

State Ex Rel. Darrell J. Robinson v. Darrel Vannoy, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Angola, Louisiana La. 2024
State of Louisiana v. Trevonte Lamarque Talbert La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
Thus, although a mental examination may not be required in every case where the issue of mental capacity is raised, (La.
State of Louisiana v. Jamal Christopher Lacon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
the defendant alleged the trial judge erred in permitting him to be handcuffed in the presence of the jury.
State of Louisiana v. Raven Lamar Wiltz La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
the defendant alleged the trial judge erred in permitting him to be handcuffed in the presence of the jury.
State of Louisiana v. Wayne Jackson La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2019
State v. Willie 235 So. 3d 1339 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Darrin Kashy Duhon -Aka- Darrin Duhon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
Thus, although a mental examination may not be required in every case where the issue of mental capacity is raised, (La.
State v. Duhon 224 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Thus, although a mental examination may not be required in every case where the issue of mental capacity is raised, (La.
State of Louisiana v. Marcus Donte Reed 200 So. 3d 291 La. 2016
art. 775; Smith, 430 So.2d at 44; (La.
State v. Ferguson 181 So. 3d 120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Victor 167 So. 3d 118 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2014
State v. Dominguez 148 So. 3d 648 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State of Louisiana v. Harold Lee Julien, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Thus, although a mental examination may not be required in every case where the issue of mental capacity is raised, (La.App.
State v. Julien 139 So. 3d 1152 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Thus, although a mental examination may not be required in every case where the issue of mental capacity is raised, (La.App.
State v. Elzy 109 So. 3d 57 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Burke 103 So. 3d 652 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
dismissed, when prejudicial conduct in or outside the courtroom makes it impossible for the defendant to obtain a fair trial, or when authorized by Article 770 or 771.” “As a general matter, mistrial is a drastic remedy which should only be declared upon a clear showing of prejudice by the defendant.” State v. Leonard, 2005-1382, p. 11 (La.6/16/06), , (mere possibility of prejudice is not enough to warrant mistrial).
State ex rel. D.M. 91 So. 3d 296 La. 2012
majority concluded that the state’s case turned on the question whether defendant’s flight and concealment constituted reliable circumstantial evidence of his “ ‘consciousness of guilt and, therefore, [ ] one of the circumstances from which the [fact finder] may infer guilt.’ ” D.M., 11-0462 at 7, 80 So.3d at 22 ()
State v. Anderson 85 So. 3d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Leonard, 2005-1382, p. 11 (La.6/16/06), , (mere possibility of prejudice is not enough to warrant mistrial).
State of Louisiana v. Gregory Dwayne Harrell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
In its decision in Williams
State v. Carter 84 So. 3d 499 La. 2012
State v. Williams 87 So. 3d 106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Odenbaugh 82 So. 3d 215 La. 2011
State v. Bennett 63 So. 3d 251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
| ¿“Ordinarily, a defendant before the court should not be shackled or handcuffed or garbed in any manner destructive of the presumption of his innocence and of the dignity and impartiality of judicial proceedings.”
State v. Stokes 50 So. 3d 884 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Furthermore, when the issue of a defendant’s incapacity to proceed is presented by “bare allegations without supporting evidence, the exercise of discretion conferred on the trial judge will not be disturbed.”
State of Louisiana v. Wendell Bourque La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. Scott, 04-1312 (La.1/19/06), (mere possibility of prejudice is not enough to warrant mistrial).
State v. Bourque 33 So. 3d 1092 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Scott, 04-1312 (La.1/19/06), ; (mere possibility of prejudice is not enough to warrant mistrial).
State v. Addison 8 So. 3d 707 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Baylor 998 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. Bellow 993 So. 2d 307 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
State v. Logan 986 So. 2d 772 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
State v. Arceneaux 983 So. 2d 148 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
See State v. Brown, 846 So.2d at 722 , in which the Louisiana Supreme Court stated ( (La.
State v. Leonard 932 So. 2d 660 La. 2006
State v. Scott, 04-1312 (La.1/19/06), ; (mere possibility of prejudice is not enough to warrant mistrial).
State v. Scott 921 So. 2d 904 La. 2006
(mere possibility of prejudice is not enough to warrant mistrial).
State of Louisiana v. William L. Giles La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
State v. Giles 884 So. 2d 1233 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
State v. Carmouche 872 So. 2d 1020 La. 2003
State v. Brown 846 So. 2d 715 La. 2003
(evidence of flight, concealment, and attempt to avoid apprehension is relevant and admissible to prove consciousness of guilt from which the factfinder may infer guilt).
State v. Williams 841 So. 2d 936 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State v. Ducre 827 So. 2d 1120 La. 2002
State v. Thomas 810 So. 2d 1262 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
State v. Bell 796 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
[State v. Wilkerson (Clarence Everett) ] at 658.
State v. MM 802 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
State v. M.M. 802 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Brown 793 So. 2d 422 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Washington 769 So. 2d 1235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Furthermore, when the issue of a defendant’s incapacity to proceed is presented by “bare allegations without supporting evidence, the exercise of discretion conferred on the trial judge will not be disturbed.”
State v. Washington 769 So. 2d 1235 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Martin 769 So. 2d 1168 La. 2000
State v. Day 762 So. 2d 264 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Hernandez, 98-448 (La.App.
State v. Hobley 752 So. 2d 771 La. 1999
State v. Hernandez 735 So. 2d 888 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State v. Raymond, 97-81 (La.App.