judge committed reversible error in Louisiana

1977State v. Clark, 340 So.2d 1302 (La.1976); State v. Smith, 332 So.2d 773 (La.1976); State v. Butler, 331 So.2d 425 (La.1976); State v. Kaufman, 331 So.2d 16 (La.1976).

1977State v. Smith, La., 332 So.2d 773 (1976); State v. Butler, La., 331 So.2d 425 (1976); State v. Kaufman, La., 331 So.2d 16 (1976).

1977State v. Clark, 340 So.2d 1302 (La.1976); State v. Smith, 332 So.2d 773 (La.1976); State v. Butler, 331 So.2d 425 (La.1976); State v. Kaufman, 331 So.2d 16 (La.1976).

1977State v. Smith, La., 332 So.2d 773 (1976); State v. Butler, La., 331 So.2d 425 (1976); State v. Kaufman, La., 331 So.2d 16 (1976).

1977State v. Clark, 340 So.2d 1302 (La.1976); State v. Smith, 332 So.2d 773 (La.1976); State v. Butler, 331 So.2d 425 (La.1976); State v. Kaufman, 331 So.2d 16 (La.1976).

1977State v. Smith, La., 332 So.2d 773 (1976); State v. Butler, La., 331 So.2d 425 (1976); State v. Kaufman, La., 331 So.2d 16 (1976).

2007In State v. Guzman, 99-1753 (La.5/16/00), 769 So.2d 1158 , the defendant argued that the trial judge committed reversible error when it failed to inform him of the penalties for subsequent DWI offenses, as required by LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 556.1(E).

2006In State v. Dyer, 95-2368 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/2/96) , 682 So.2d 278, 280 , writ denied, 96-2570 (La.3/21/97), 691 So.2d 81 , the First Circuit stated that, "[q]uestions regarding the weighing of testimony by police officers are a proper subject for voir dire examination." The court in Dyer concluded the trial judge committed reversible error when he refused to allow defense counsel to inquire into jurors' attitudes concerning police officers or eyewitnesses as the proffered voir dire examination "would have elicited responses regarding a potential juror's weighing of testimony by the eyewitness

2006In State v. Dyer, 95-2368 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/2/96) , 682 So.2d 278, 280 , writ denied, 96-2570 (La.3/21/97), 691 So.2d 81 , the First Circuit stated that, "[q]uestions regarding the weighing of testimony by police officers are a proper subject for voir dire examination." The court in Dyer concluded the trial judge committed reversible error when he refused to allow defense counsel to inquire into jurors' attitudes concerning police officers or eyewitnesses as the proffered voir dire examination "would have elicited responses regarding a potential juror's weighing of testimony by the eyewitness

2006State v. Dyer, 682 So.2d at 281 .

2004Specifically, appellant contends that there exists an error as to the principal cause of the agreement and an error of fact because the OPSB was not the appellee’s employer. |4A consent judgment has binding force from the presumed voluntary acquiescence of the parties, not from adjudication by the court, Ritchey v. Azar, 383 So.2d 360 (La.1980), and may be annulled or rescinded for an error of fact or error of the principal cause of the agreement, Succession of Koch, 487 So.2d 635 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986), writ denied, 489 So.2d 251 (La.1986), any change, if warranted, must be affected according

2004Specifically, appellant contends that there exists an error as to the principal cause of the agreement and an error of fact because the OPSB was not the appellee’s employer. |4A consent judgment has binding force from the presumed voluntary acquiescence of the parties, not from adjudication by the court, Ritchey v. Azar, 383 So.2d 360 (La.1980), and may be annulled or rescinded for an error of fact or error of the principal cause of the agreement, Succession of Koch, 487 So.2d 635 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986), writ denied, 489 So.2d 251 (La.1986), any change, if warranted, must be affected according

2004Specifically, appellant contends that there exists an error as to the principal cause of the agreement and an error of fact because the OPSB was not the appellee’s employer. |4A consent judgment has binding force from the presumed voluntary acquiescence of the parties, not from adjudication by the court, Ritchey v. Azar, 383 So.2d 360 (La.1980), and may be annulled or rescinded for an error of fact or error of the principal cause of the agreement, Succession of Koch, 487 So.2d 635 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986), writ denied, 489 So.2d 251 (La.1986), any change, if warranted, must be affected according

2002State v. Moorcraft, 319 So.2d at 388 .

2002Additionally, the supreme court held that State v. Hollingsworth, 160 La. 26, 39-40 , 106 So. 662 , 667 *165 (1925), which found that a trial judge committed reversible error when he refused to hear closing argument by the defense, was still valid law.

2002Additionally, the supreme court held that State v. Hollingsworth, 160 La. 26, 39-40 , 106 So. 662 , 667 *165 (1925), which found that a trial judge committed reversible error when he refused to hear closing argument by the defense, was still valid law.

2000The Allen charge originated in Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 , 17 S.Ct. 154 , 41 L.Ed.2d 528 (1896), where the United States Supreme Court approved a charge to break a jury deadlock and accomplish jury unanimity.

2000The Allen charge originated in Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 , 17 S.Ct. 154 , 41 L.Ed.2d 528 (1896), where the United States Supreme Court approved a charge to break a jury deadlock and accomplish jury unanimity.

1997App. 5th Cir. 12/14/94), 648 So.2d 1015 . *751 Given this record we cannot say the trial judge committed reversible error when he found that "the 50/50 custody arrangement has been working and there was no showing that this arrangement was not in the children's best interest." This court cannot ignore the fact that the 50/50 joint custody arrangement has been in effect for over two years and the children and parents have developed patterns of conduct that would be seriously disrupted if a major change in the custody arrangement were ordered.

1997I, Secs. 1, 2, 3 and 22 of the Louisiana Constitution to “disabled employees who demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the predominant and major cause of strokes or heart attacks is extraordinary and unusual nonphysical work stress in comparison to the stress or exertion experienced by the average employee in his occupation and not some other source of stress or pre-existing condition.” LAW & DISCUSSION Our role in determining the constitutionality of statutes was discussed by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Chamberlain v. State, through DOTD, 624 So.2d 874 (La. 1993).

1995The jurisprudence has held: "It is improper conduct for either the prosecution or the defense knowingly to call a witness who will claim a privilege, for the purpose of impressing upon the jury the fact of the claim or privilege." State v. Berry, 324 So.2d 822 , 830 (La.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 954 , 96 S.Ct. 1731 , 48 L.Ed.2d 198 (1976); see also State v. Duhon, 332 So.2d 245, 247 (La. 1976).

1995The jurisprudence has held: "It is improper conduct for either the prosecution or the defense knowingly to call a witness who will claim a privilege, for the purpose of impressing upon the jury the fact of the claim or privilege." State v. Berry, 324 So.2d 822 , 830 (La.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 954 , 96 S.Ct. 1731 , 48 L.Ed.2d 198 (1976); see also State v. Duhon, 332 So.2d 245, 247 (La. 1976).

1995The jurisprudence has held: "It is improper conduct for either the prosecution or the defense knowingly to call a witness who will claim a privilege, for the purpose of impressing upon the jury the fact of the claim or privilege." State v. Berry, 324 So.2d 822 , 830 (La.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 954 , 96 S.Ct. 1731 , 48 L.Ed.2d 198 (1976); see also State v. Duhon, 332 So.2d 245, 247 (La. 1976).

1994See: State v. Lee, 485 So.2d 555 (La.App. 5th Cir.1986).

1989Woods v. Cumis Insurance Society, Inc., 364 So.2d 213 (La.App. 4th Cir.1978).

1988The Louisiana Supreme Court in Kirk v. State, 526 So.2d 223 (La.1988) has declared R.S. 14:322.1 unconstitutional.

1983ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 3 By this assignment defendant alleges that the trial judge committed reversible error by instructing the jury that it "may find that the defendant intended the natural and probable consequences of his acts." Defendant relies, for his proposition, upon the United States Supreme Court decision in Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 , 99 S.Ct. 2450 , 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979), and its adoption by our state Supreme Court in State v. Heads, 385 So.2d 230 (La.1980).

1983While prior inconsistent statements are admissible for impeachment purposes, Smith v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., 391 So.2d 962 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1980), the refusal to do so here was not reversible error.

1983ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 3 By this assignment defendant alleges that the trial judge committed reversible error by instructing the jury that it "may find that the defendant intended the natural and probable consequences of his acts." Defendant relies, for his proposition, upon the United States Supreme Court decision in Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 , 99 S.Ct. 2450 , 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979), and its adoption by our state Supreme Court in State v. Heads, 385 So.2d 230 (La.1980).

1983ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 3 By this assignment defendant alleges that the trial judge committed reversible error by instructing the jury that it "may find that the defendant intended the natural and probable consequences of his acts." Defendant relies, for his proposition, upon the United States Supreme Court decision in Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 , 99 S.Ct. 2450 , 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979), and its adoption by our state Supreme Court in State v. Heads, 385 So.2d 230 (La.1980).

1982Under Arceneaux v. Domingue, 365 So.2d 1330 (La.1978); and Canter v. Koehring Company, 283 So.2d 716 (La.1973) an appellate court should not disturb a finding of fact unless it is manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.

1982Under Arceneaux v. Domingue, 365 So.2d 1330 (La.1978); and Canter v. Koehring Company, 283 So.2d 716 (La.1973) an appellate court should not disturb a finding of fact unless it is manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.

1981His responsibility to exercise reasonable care for his own safety and protection is at least equal to that of his supervisory co-employees." Plaintiff's negligence which caused his accident was nothing more than a failure to *560 exercise common sense like the plaintiff in Richards v. Farmers Export Co., 377 So.2d 859 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1979).

1981Duly appointed curator and counsel for the minor relies on the case of Boudreaux v. Matt, 370 So.2d 139 which holds: “It is well settled in Louisiana that a mother’s testimony or admission which would have the effect of making her child illegitimate cannot overcome the presumption provided by LSA Civil Code Art. 184 that the husband of the mother is the father of the children conceived during the marriage, and such testimony and admission must be disregarded.