Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
25 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Snydergreen2 sentences2025Nomey, 613 So.2d [at] 161-62 . . ., or a nunc pro tunc hearing to determine competency retrospectively under State v. Snyder, [19]98- 1078 (La. 4/14/99), 750 So.2d 832 .” Seals, 2000-2738, p. 6, 831 So.2d at 833 . 2020On the other hand, “[i]n certain instances, a nunc pro tunc hearing on the issue of competency is appropriate if a meaningful inquiry into the defendant’s competency may still be had.” Id. (citing State v. Snyder, 98-1078 (La. 4/14/99), 750 So.2d 832 , opinion after remand, 98-1078 (La. 4/14/04), 874 So.2d 739 , cert, granted, judgment vacated on other grounds, Synder v. Louisiana, 545 U.S. 1137 , 125 S.Ct. 2956 , 162 L.Ed.2d 884 (2002)). | 4 | 15 |
State v. Nomeygreen2 sentences2020On the other hand, “[i]n certain instances, a nunc pro tunc hearing on the issue of competency is appropriate if a meaningful inquiry into the defendant’s competency may still be had.” Id. (citing State v. Snyder, 98-1078 (La. 4/14/99), 750 So.2d 832 , opinion after remand, 98-1078 (La. 4/14/04), 874 So.2d 739 , cert, granted, judgment vacated on other grounds, Synder v. Louisiana, 545 U.S. 1137 , 125 S.Ct. 2956 , 162 L.Ed.2d 884 (2002)). 2020On the other hand, “[i]n certain instances, a nunc pro tunc hearing on the issue of competency is appropriate if a meaningful inquiry into the defendant’s competency may still be had.” Id. (citing State v. Snyder, 98-1078 (La. 4/14/99), 750 So.2d 832 , opinion after remand, 98-1078 (La. 4/14/04), 874 So.2d 739 , cert, granted, judgment vacated on other grounds, Synder v. Louisiana, 545 U.S. 1137 , 125 S.Ct. 2956 , 162 L.Ed.2d 884 (2002)). | 4 | 14 |
State v. Campergreen2 sentences2020“A ‘meaningful’ determination is possible ‘where the state of the record, together with such additional evidence as may be relevant and available, permits an accurate assessment of the defendant's condition at the time 13 of the original ... proceedings.’” State v. Camper, 08-0314, p. 17, n. 7 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/1/08), 996 So.2d 571, 583 (quoting Snyder, 98-1078, p. 31, 750 So.2d at 855 .) “If a retrospective determination cannot be made, or if it is determined that defendant was not competent at the time of trial, the defendant shall be entitled to a new trial.” Id. 2020“A ‘meaningful’ determination is possible ‘where the state of the record, together with such additional evidence as may be relevant and available, permits an accurate assessment of the defendant's condition at the time 13 of the original ... proceedings.’” State v. Camper, 08-0314, p. 17, n. 7 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/1/08), 996 So.2d 571, 583 (quoting Snyder, 98-1078, p. 31, 750 So.2d at 855 .) “If a retrospective determination cannot be made, or if it is determined that defendant was not competent at the time of trial, the defendant shall be entitled to a new trial.” Id. | 2 | 2 |
State Ex Rel. Seals v. Stategreen2 sentences2025In terms of the burden of proof at the nunc pro tunc hearing, “[t]he State bears the burden of providing sufficient evidence for the court to make a rational decision.” Pullen, 2019-4, p. 8, 279 So.3d at 450 (citing Seals, 2000-2738, pp. 6-7, 831 So.2d at 834 ). 2025Nomey, 613 So.2d [at] 161-62 . . ., or a nunc pro tunc hearing to determine competency retrospectively under State v. Snyder, [19]98- 1078 (La. 4/14/99), 750 So.2d 832 .” Seals, 2000-2738, p. 6, 831 So.2d at 833 . | 1 | 9 |
Willie Reynolds v. Larry Norris, Arkansas Department of Correctiongreen1 sentence2025The meaningfulness of the nunc pro tunc hearing is important for ensuring “the defendant’s due process rights are adequately protected.” Pullen, 2019-4, pp. 7-8, 279 So.3d at 450 (citing Reynolds v. Norris, 86 F.3d 796, 802 (8th Cir. 1996)). | 1 | 1 |
State of Louisiana Versus Nicholas Pullengreen2 sentences2025In terms of the burden of proof at the nunc pro tunc hearing, “[t]he State bears the burden of providing sufficient evidence for the court to make a rational decision.” Pullen, 2019-4, p. 8, 279 So.3d at 450 (citing Seals, 2000-2738, pp. 6-7, 831 So.2d at 834 ). 2025The meaningfulness of the nunc pro tunc hearing is important for ensuring “the defendant’s due process rights are adequately protected.” Pullen, 2019-4, pp. 7-8, 279 So.3d at 450 (citing Reynolds v. Norris, 86 F.3d 796, 802 (8th Cir. 1996)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mathewsgreen1 sentence2025App. 1 Cir. 9/28/01), 809 So.2d 1002, 1016 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Guzmangreen1 sentence2007Cf. State v. Robinson, 06-1406 (La.12/8/06), 943 So.2d 371 (appellate courts should refrain from setting aside guilty pleas resulting in dispositions favorable to the defendant on the basis of defects about which the defendant does not complain); State v. Campbell, 01-0329 (La.11/2/01), 799 So.2d 1136 (same); State v. Guzman, 99-1528, p. 6 (La.5/16/00), 769 So.2d 1158, 1162 (same). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Michael A. S. Makrisgreen1 sentence1999United States v. Makris, 535 F.2d 899, 904 (5th Cir.1976). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Snyder
green
2 sentences2020On the other hand, “[i]n certain instances, a nunc pro tunc hearing on the issue of competency is appropriate if a meaningful inquiry into the defendant’s competency may still be had.” Id. (citing State v. Snyder, 98-1078 (La. 4/14/99), 750 So.2d 832 , opinion after remand, 98-1078 (La. 4/14/04), 874 So.2d 739 , cert, granted, judgment vacated on other grounds, Synder v. Louisiana, 545 U.S. 1137 , 125 S.Ct. 2956 , 162 L.Ed.2d 884 (2002)). 2020On the other hand, “[i]n certain instances, a nunc pro tunc hearing on the issue of competency is appropriate if a meaningful inquiry into the defendant’s competency may still be had.” Id. (citing State v. Snyder, 98-1078 (La. 4/14/99), 750 So.2d 832 , opinion after remand, 98-1078 (La. 4/14/04), 874 So.2d 739 , cert, granted, judgment vacated on other grounds, Synder v. Louisiana, 545 U.S. 1137 , 125 S.Ct. 2956 , 162 L.Ed.2d 884 (2002)). | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Snyder v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences2020On the other hand, “[i]n certain instances, a nunc pro tunc hearing on the issue of competency is appropriate if a meaningful inquiry into the defendant’s competency may still be had.” Id. (citing State v. Snyder, 98-1078 (La. 4/14/99), 750 So.2d 832 , opinion after remand, 98-1078 (La. 4/14/04), 874 So.2d 739 , cert, granted, judgment vacated on other grounds, Synder v. Louisiana, 545 U.S. 1137 , 125 S.Ct. 2956 , 162 L.Ed.2d 884 (2002)). 2020On the other hand, “[i]n certain instances, a nunc pro tunc hearing on the issue of competency is appropriate if a meaningful inquiry into the defendant’s competency may still be had.” Id. (citing State v. Snyder, 98-1078 (La. 4/14/99), 750 So.2d 832 , opinion after remand, 98-1078 (La. 4/14/04), 874 So.2d 739 , cert, granted, judgment vacated on other grounds, Synder v. Louisiana, 545 U.S. 1137 , 125 S.Ct. 2956 , 162 L.Ed.2d 884 (2002)). | 2 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Carney
neutral
2 sentences2012In his pro se rebuttal brief, citing State v. Carney, 25,518 (La.App. 2 Cir. 10/13/95), 663 So.2d 470 , the defendant suggests that remand for a nunc pro tunc hearing is absurd. 2010In his pro se rebuttal brief, citing State v. Carney, 25,518 (La.App. 2 Cir. 10/13/95), 663 So.2d 470 , the defendant suggests that remand for a nunc pro tunc hearing is absurd. | 2 | 2010–2012 |
State v. Willie
green
1 sentence2019Id. at 1349-50 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Juniors v. Louisiana
neutral
2 sentences2012In State v. Juniors, 05-649, p. 14 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/30/05), 918 So.2d 1137, 1145 , writ denied, 06-267 (La.9/15/06), 936 So.2d 1257 , cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1226 , 127 S.Ct. 1293 , 167 L.Ed.2d 110 (2007), in considering whether the defendant’s conviction 114should result in nullification or a nunc pro tunc hearing, this court discussed Snyder and held: In the present case, Defendant was examined by the two members of the sanity commission. 2012In State v. Juniors, 05-649, p. 14 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/30/05), 918 So.2d 1137, 1145 , writ denied, 06-267 (La.9/15/06), 936 So.2d 1257 , cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1226 , 127 S.Ct. 1293 , 167 L.Ed.2d 110 (2007), in considering whether the defendant’s conviction 114should result in nullification or a nunc pro tunc hearing, this court discussed Snyder and held: In the present case, Defendant was examined by the two members of the sanity commission. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Aylor
green
1 sentence2012Nomey, supra; State v. Harris, 406 So.2d 128 (La.1981); State v. Aylor, 416 So.2d 927 (La.1982). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Harris
green
1 sentence2012Nomey, supra; State v. Harris, 406 So.2d 128 (La.1981); State v. Aylor, 416 So.2d 927 (La.1982). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Juniors
green
1 sentence2012In State v. Juniors, 05-649, p. 14 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/30/05), 918 So.2d 1137, 1145 , writ denied, 06-267 (La.9/15/06), 936 So.2d 1257 , cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1226 , 127 S.Ct. 1293 , 167 L.Ed.2d 110 (2007), in considering whether the defendant’s conviction 114should result in nullification or a nunc pro tunc hearing, this court discussed Snyder and held: In the present case, Defendant was examined by the two members of the sanity commission. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Juniors
neutral
1 sentence2012In State v. Juniors, 05-649, p. 14 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/30/05), 918 So.2d 1137, 1145 , writ denied, 06-267 (La.9/15/06), 936 So.2d 1257 , cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1226 , 127 S.Ct. 1293 , 167 L.Ed.2d 110 (2007), in considering whether the defendant’s conviction 114should result in nullification or a nunc pro tunc hearing, this court discussed Snyder and held: In the present case, Defendant was examined by the two members of the sanity commission. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Robinson
green
1 sentence2007Cf. State v. Robinson, 06-1406 (La.12/8/06), 943 So.2d 371 (appellate courts should refrain from setting aside guilty pleas resulting in dispositions favorable to the defendant on the basis of defects about which the defendant does not complain); State v. Campbell, 01-0329 (La.11/2/01), 799 So.2d 1136 (same); State v. Guzman, 99-1528, p. 6 (La.5/16/00), 769 So.2d 1158, 1162 (same). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Campbell
green
1 sentence2007Cf. State v. Robinson, 06-1406 (La.12/8/06), 943 So.2d 371 (appellate courts should refrain from setting aside guilty pleas resulting in dispositions favorable to the defendant on the basis of defects about which the defendant does not complain); State v. Campbell, 01-0329 (La.11/2/01), 799 So.2d 1136 (same); State v. Guzman, 99-1528, p. 6 (La.5/16/00), 769 So.2d 1158, 1162 (same). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Bennett
green
2 sentences2004CONCLUSION After reviewing the record of the hearing conducted by the trial court, we find that the lower court has complied with the procedural due process requirements that must be afforded him under State v. Bennett, 345 So.2d 1129 . [12] The testimony and evidence presented during the nunc pro tunc hearing support the trial court's determinations of competency. 2004CONCLUSION After reviewing the record of the hearing conducted by the trial court, we find that the lower court has complied with the procedural due process requirements that must be afforded him under State v. Bennett, 345 So.2d 1129 . [12] The testimony and evidence presented during the nunc pro tunc hearing support the trial court's determinations of competency. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.