Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite In re Maples, 724 So. 2d 1276.

48 citing documents.

State Of Louisiana v. David H. Brown (Parish of Lafourche) Convictions Affirmed; Death Sentences Reversed; Case Remanded For … La. 2021
12/1/98), (no abuse of discretion for denying cause challenge for juror who stated that “in an appropriate case” she could return a life sentence); State v. Hart, 96-0697, pp. 7–11 (La.
State of Louisiana Versus Teddy Chester La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2021
State Of Louisiana v. Brhian Thomas La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
Henry v. Sullivan 223 So. 3d 1263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Chester 208 So. 3d 338 La. 2016
12/1/98), , after which the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari.
State of Louisiana v. Robert Glen Coleman 188 So. 3d 174 La. 2016
12/1/98), State v. Smith, 437 So.
State v. Jasper 149 So. 3d 1239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 12/4/02), (citing State v. Castleberry 98-1388, p. 28 (La.4/13/99), ; State v. Chester, 97-2790, p. 8 (La.12/1/98), ); see also State v. Coleman, 02-1000, p. 16 (La.App.
State v. Harrell 138 So. 3d 721 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Chester, 97-2790 (La.12/1/98), , cert.
State v. Breaux 110 So. 3d 281 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
4 Cir. 12/4/02), (citing State v. Castleberry, 98-1388, p. 28 (La.4/13/99), ; State v. Chester, 97-2790, p. 8 l4(La.12/l/98), ); see also State v. Coleman, 2002-1000, p. 16 (La.App.
State v. Hugle 104 So. 3d 598 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
The right to expose a “witness’ motivation in testifying is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination.” State v. Chester, 97-2790, p. 15 (La.12/1/98), , 1286.
State v. Lirette 102 So. 3d 801 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Chester, 97-2790, p. 17 (La.12/1/98), , cert.
State v. Massey 97 So. 3d 13 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Chester, 97-2790, p. 17 (La.12/1/98), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Terry L. Clarkson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Clarkson 86 So. 3d 804 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
537 , 169 L.Ed.2d 377 (2007), (citing State v. Chester, 97-2790 (La¿2/l/98),29 , cert.
State v. Odenbaugh 82 So. 3d 215 La. 2011
1429 , 146 L.Ed.2d 819 (2000) (denial of cause challenge upheld for juror who stated that he was predisposed to the death penalty and that the mitigating evidence would have to be Insubstantial for juror to recommend life sentence); State v. Chester, 97-2790, p. 14 (La.12/1/98), , cert.
State v. Jacobs 67 So. 3d 535 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Chester, 97-2790, p. 17 (La.12/1/98), , cert.
State ex rel. L.R. 52 So. 3d 944 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2010
State v. Chester, 97-2790, p. 15 (La.12/1/98), .
State v. Dressner 45 So. 3d 127 La. 2010
State v. Chester, 97-2790 (La.12/1/98), , cert.
State v. Chester 27 So. 3d 837 La. 2010
State v. Chester, 97-2790 (La.12/1/98), .
Kozlowicz v. State, Department of Public Safety & Corrections 9 So. 3d 1000 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Chester, 97-2790 (La.12/01/98), .
State v. Lawrence 5 So. 3d 896 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
art. 607(D); State v. Chester, 97-2790, p. 15 (La.12/1/98), .
State v. Merwin 984 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
art. 607(D); State v. Chester, 97-2790, p. 15 (La.12/1/98), , cert.
State v. MICELOTTI 984 So. 2d 847 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
art. 607(D); State v. Chester, 97-2790, p. 15 (La.12/1/98), , cert.
State v. Williams 974 So. 2d 157 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
State v. Chester, 97-2790 (La.12/1/98), , cert.
State v. Blank 955 So. 2d 90 La. 2007
12/1/98), -86 ; State v. Hart, 96-0697 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Clayton James Greene La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
State v. Draughn 950 So. 2d 583 La. 2007
State v. Chester, 1997-2790 p. 8 (La.12/1/98), , cert.
State v. Weary 931 So. 2d 297 La. 2006
Tate , XXXX-XXXX p. 26, 851 So.2d at 940 (defendant sentenced to death, other perpetrators allowed to plead guilty to manslaughter, first degree murder without death and accessory after the fact); State v. Chester, 1997-2790 p. 23 (La.12/1/98), , cert.
State v. Scott 921 So. 2d 904 La. 2006
1429 , 146 L.Ed.2d 319 (2000) (denial of cause challenge upheld for juror who stated that he was predisposed to the death penalty and that the mitigating evidence would have to be substantial for juror to recommend life sentence); State v. Chester, 97-2790, p. 14 (La.12/1/98), , cert.
State v. Juniors 915 So. 2d 291 La. 2005
See Tate, 01-1658 at 19, 851 So.2d at 936 , quoting State v. Chester, 97-2790, pp. 14-15 (La.12/1/98), -86 .
State v. Legrand 864 So. 2d 89 La. 2004
State v. Chester, 97-2790 (La.12/1/98), .
State v. Jackson 863 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
This Court noted: The purpose of the rule of sequestration is “to prevent witnesses from being influenced by the testimony of earlier witnesses” and “to strengthen the role of cross-examination in developing the facts.” State v. Chester, 97-2790 (La.12/1/98), .
State v. Tate 851 So. 2d 921 La. 2003
State v. Chester, 97-2790, pp. 14-15 (La.12/1/98), -86 .
State v. Taylor 838 So. 2d 729 La. 2003
See State v. Chester, 97-2790, p. 23 (La.12/1/98), (death sentence imposed in first degree murder case not disproportionate on ground that co-defendant, who was tried and convicted of second degree murder after defendant, was given life sentence; state contended co-defendant was a principal and defendant was shooter, and jury found the evidence supported this co
State v. Doleman 835 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
State v. Castleberry, 98-1388, p. 28 (La.4/13/99), ; State v. Chester, 97-2790, p. 8 (La.12/1/98), .
State v. Dunn 831 So. 2d 862 La. 2002
Most recently, in State v. Chester, 97-2790 (La.12/1/98), , this court rejected the capital defendant's claim that the trial court erred when it denied his challenge for cause based on a prospective juror's inability to return a life sentence in case of intentional murder.
State v. Coleman 828 So. 2d 1130 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
The purpose of the rule of sequestration is “to prevent witnesses from being influenced by the testimony of earlier witnesses” and “to strengthen the role of cross-examination in developing the facts.” State v. Chester, 97-2790 (La.12/1/98), .
State v. Ball 824 So. 2d 1089 La. 2002
In State v. Chester, 97-2790 (La.12/1/98), , this Court rejected the capital defendant's claim that the trial court erred when it denied his challenge for cause based on a prospective juror's inability to return a life sentence in case of intentional murder.
State v. Williams 788 So. 2d 515 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
State v. Chester, 97-2790, p. 8 (La.12/1/98), ; State v. Wilson, 96-1392, p. 7 (La.12/13/96), .
State v. Broaden 780 So. 2d 349 La. 2001
The voir dire of Lanclos resembles that conducted in State v. Chester, 97-2790 (La.12/1/98), , in that the state did not rehabilitate the juror after the defense elicited testimony indicative of his commitment to vote for the death penalty.
State v. Taylor 781 So. 2d 1205 La. 2001
Additionally, we conclude that the trial court refusing to accept challenges for cause against Carol Funk and Paulette Motley is permissible in light of State v. Chester, 97-2790 (La.12/1/98), , which applies the appropriate basis for review.
State v. Miller 776 So. 2d 396 La. 2000
In State v. Chester, 97-2790 (La.12/1/98), , this court affirmed a death sentence, although one juror in voir dire stated that the penalty should be death for a specific intent killing.
State v. Bullock 767 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
State v. Chester, 97-2790, p. 8 (La.12/1/98), , cert.
Frederick v. Ieyoub 762 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
State v. Chester, 97-2790 (La.12/01/98), ; State v. Wilson, 96-1392, 96-2076 (La.12/13/96), .
State v. Thibodeaux 750 So. 2d 916 La. 1999
State v. Chester, 97-2790 (La.12/1/98); .
State v. Hampton 737 So. 2d 699 La. 1999
12/1/98), ("[T]he judge may address the jury outside the defendant's presence when such communication is within the bounds of a trial-related necessity.") (citations omitted).
State v. Battie 735 So. 2d 844 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
[2] State v. Chester, 97-2790 (La.12/1/98), .
State v. Castleberry 758 So. 2d 749 La. 1999
State v. Chester, 97-2790 (La.12/1/98)