134 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1919–2026 11 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. Augustinegreen2 sentences1974State v. Hampton, 274 So.2d 383 (La.1973); State v. Augustine, 263 La. 977 , 270 So.2d 118 (1972); State v. Douglas, 250 La. 480 , 196 So.2d 799 (1967). 1974State v. Hampton, 274 So.2d 383 (La.1973); State v. Augustine, 263 La. 977 , 270 So.2d 118 (1972); State v. Douglas, 250 La. 480 , 196 So.2d 799 (1967). | 9 | 12 |
State v. Whitegreen2 sentences1995"Whether a patent error, like other statutory error, requires reversal must be evaluated in light of the potential impact on the fairness of the proceedings." State v. Schrader, 518 So.2d 1024, 1037-38 (La.1988), cert. denied, Schrader v. Whitley, 498 U.S. 903 , 111 S.Ct. 265 , 112 L.Ed.2d 221 (1990) (quoting State v. White, 404 So.2d 1202, 1204-05 (La.1981)). 1986"Whether a patent error, like other statutory error, requires reversal must be evaluated in light of the potential impact on the fairness of the proceedings." State v. White, 404 So.2d 1202, 1205 (La.1981). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Oliveauxgreen2 sentences2002NOTES [1] In State v. Young, 96-0195 (La.10/15/96), 680 So.2d 1171, 1174 , the Louisiana Supreme Court held that LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 881.2(A)(2) encompassed plea agreements involving sentencing caps as well as specific sentences. [2] See State v. Stevenson, 00-1296 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/30/01) , 778 So.2d 1165, 1166 ; State v. Borchers, 97-67 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/28/97) , 695 So.2d 1054, 1057 , writ dismissed, 97-1715 (La.11/14/97), 703 So.2d 1254 . [3] State v. Stevenson, supra and State v. Borchers, supra . [4] LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 920; State v. Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La.1975); State v. Weiland, 556 So. 2001La.C.Cr.P. art. 920; State v. Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La. 1975); State v. Weiland, 556 So.2d 175 (La.App. 5 Cir.1990). | 2 | 7 |
State v. Charlesgreen2 sentences2025State v. Charles, 450 So. 2d 1287, 1291 ( La. 1984); State v. Evans, 2023- 1223 ( La. 2024State v. Charles, 450 So.2d 1287, 1291 (La. 1984). | 2 | 4 |
State v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2024App. 4 Cir. 1/30/14), 156 So.3d 126, 129 (“a non-responsive verdict is a patent error which does not require a contemporaneous objection,” citing La. 2018App. 4 Cir. 1/30/14), 156 So.3d 126 , 129 ("a non-responsive verdict is a patent error which does not require a contemporaneous objection," citing La. | 2 | 4 |
State v. Davenportgreen2 sentences2010Recently, however, in State v. Davenport, 08-463 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/25/08) , 2 So.3d 445 , writ denied, 2009-158 (La.10/16/09), 19 So.3d 473 , this Court rendered a decision that corrected this patent error by way of its opinion. 2010See also State v. Davenport, 08-463 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/25/08) , 2 So.3d 445 , writ denied, 2009-158 (La.10/16/09), 19 So.3d 473 (wherein this Court rendered a decision that corrected this patent error by way of its opinion rather than remanding the matter to the trial court). | 2 | 3 |
State Ex Rel. Thompson v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Recently, however, in State v. Davenport, 08-463 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/25/08) , 2 So.3d 445 , writ denied, 2009-158 (La.10/16/09), 19 So.3d 473 , this Court rendered a decision that corrected this patent error by way of its opinion. 2010See also State v. Davenport, 08-463 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/25/08) , 2 So.3d 445 , writ denied, 2009-158 (La.10/16/09), 19 So.3d 473 (wherein this Court rendered a decision that corrected this patent error by way of its opinion rather than remanding the matter to the trial court). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Godejohngreen2 sentences1998App. 5 Cir.1990); and State v. Godejohn, 425 So.2d 750 (La.1983), and we find a patent error which requires that we vacate the sentence imposed pursuant to the multiple offender bill and remand for re-sentencing. 1989See also State v. Godejohn, 425 So.2d 750 (La.1983), in regard to the authority of an appellate court to recognize such a patent error in a criminal proceeding. | 2 | 3 |
State of Louisiana v. Rodricus C. Crawfordgreen2 sentences2017See State v. Crawford, 14-2153, p. 19 (La. 11/16/16), 218 So.3d 13, 25 (citing State v. Mickelson, 12-2539, p. 5 (La. 9/3/14), 149 So.3d 178, 182 ). 2 In addition to addressing the foregoing issues, the court of appeal found no error in rulings by the district court regarding jury instructions, a motion to quash on grounds of prescription, a motion to quash on grounds of double jeopardy and the rule of lenity, a motion to recuse the trial judge, the revocation of defendant’s bail, a motion to prevent the prosecutor from bringing weapons into the courtroom, allowing a witness to serve as the st 2017See State v. Crawford, 14-2153, p. 19 (La. 11/16/16), 218 So.3d 13, 25 (citing State v. Mickelson, 12-2539, p. 5 (La. 9/3/14), 149 So.3d 178, 182 ). 2 In addition to addressing the foregoing issues, the court of appeal found no error in rulings by the district court regarding jury instructions, a motion to quash on grounds of prescription, a motion to quash on grounds of double jeopardy and the rule of lenity, a motion to recuse the trial judge, the revocation of defendant’s bail, a motion to prevent the prosecutor from bringing weapons into the courtroom, allowing a witness to serve as the st | 2 | 2 |
State of Louisiana v. Eric Dale Mickelsongreen2 sentences2017See State v. Crawford, 14-2153, p. 19 (La. 11/16/16), 218 So.3d 13, 25 (citing State v. Mickelson, 12-2539, p. 5 (La. 9/3/14), 149 So.3d 178, 182 ). 2 In addition to addressing the foregoing issues, the court of appeal found no error in rulings by the district court regarding jury instructions, a motion to quash on grounds of prescription, a motion to quash on grounds of double jeopardy and the rule of lenity, a motion to recuse the trial judge, the revocation of defendant’s bail, a motion to prevent the prosecutor from bringing weapons into the courtroom, allowing a witness to serve as the st 2017See State v. Crawford, 14-2153, p. 19 (La. 11/16/16), 218 So.3d 13, 25 (citing State v. Mickelson, 12-2539, p. 5 (La. 9/3/14), 149 So.3d 178, 182 ). 2 In addition to addressing the foregoing issues, the court of appeal found no error in rulings by the district court regarding jury instructions, a motion to quash on grounds of prescription, a motion to quash on grounds of double jeopardy and the rule of lenity, a motion to recuse the trial judge, the revocation of defendant’s bail, a motion to prevent the prosecutor from bringing weapons into the courtroom, allowing a witness to serve as the st | 2 | 2 |
State v. Mayeuxgreen2 sentences2016Art. 841 It is well-established that a non-responsive verdict is “error patent on the face of the record and therefore reviewable on appeal despite absence of an objection during trial.” State v. Turnbull, 377 So.2d 72, 75 (La. 1979); State v. Mayeux, 498 So.2d 701, 703 (La. 1986); State v. Campbell, 95-1409, p. 3 (La. 3/22/96), 670 So.2d 1212, 1213 (although defendants “acquiesced in the list of responsive verdicts given jurors by the trial judge,” the jury’s “return of the unresponsive verdicts ... constitutes an error patent on the face of the record”); State v. Hatcher, 02-0633, p. 5 (La.A 2002State v. Mayeux, 498 So.2d 701, 702-703 (La.1986). 1 Although the defense did not | ¡¡object to the verdict when it was announced, a non-responsive verdict is a patent error and does not require a contemporaneous objection. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Gibsongreen2 sentences2016See, State v. Roe, 13-1434, p. 40 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/8/14), 151 So.3d 838, 862 (recognizing on appeal a violation of a defendant’s right against double jeopardy to be an error patent); State v. Gibson,' 03-0647, p. 7 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/4/04), 867 So.2d 793, 798 (noting that double jeopardy has been recognized as a patent error, but addressing it as an assignment of error because the defendant raised it as such, apparently for the first time on appeal). 2014See State v. Gibson, 08-0647, p. 7 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/4/04), 867 So.2d 793, 798 (noting that double jeopardy has been recognized as a patent error, but addressing it as an assignment of error because the defendant raised it as such, apparently for the first Lntime on appeal); State v. Thomas, 99-2219, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/17/00), 764 So.2d 1104, 1108 (reviewing double jeopardy issue as a patent error). | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Claxtongreen | 2 | 2 |
State v. Augustinegreen2 sentences2006State v. Brown, 868 So.2d 775 (La.App. 1 Cir.2003) citing See State v. Augustine, 555 So.2d 1331, 1333-1334 (La.1990) and State v. Claxton, 603 So.2d 247, 250 (La.App. 1 Cir.1992). 2004State v. Brown, 868 So.2d 775 (La.App. 1 Cir.2003) citing See State v. Augustine, 555 So.2d 1331, 1333-1334 (La. 1990) and State v. Claxton, 603 So.2d 247, 250 (La.App. 1 Cir.1992). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Belgardgreen2 sentences2006The court cautioned: Williamson should not be construed as authorizing appellate review of every alleged constitutional violation and erroneous jury instruction urged first on appeal without timely objection at occurrence. 427 So.2d at 435 ; see also State v. Belgard, 410 So.2d 720, 727 (La.1982). 2004The court cautioned: |;Williamson should not be construed as authorizing appellate review of every alleged constitutional violation and erroneous jury instruction urged first on appeal without timely objection at occurrence. 427 So.2d at 435 ; see also State v. Belgard, 410 So.2d 720, 727 (La.1982). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2014In State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), 800 So.2d 790 , our supreme court discussed the issue of whether an appellate court may recognize an illegally lenient sentence as a patent error pursuant to La.Code Crim.P. art. 882(A). 2002The settled jurisprudential rule pre-dating State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La. 11/29/01), 800 So.2d 790 , was that it is inappropriate to correct a patent error favorable to defendant when the defendant was the sole appellant. | 1 | 5 |
State v. Turnergreen2 sentences2013State v. Turner, 337 So.2d 1090, 1091 (La.1976). 2006State v. Turner, 337 So.2d 1090 (La.1976) and State v. Craddock, 307 So.2d 342 (La. 1975). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Randolphgreen2 sentences2011State v. Randolph, 409 So.2d 554 (La.1981), (per curiam)(on rehearing, 1982); State v. Christian, 05-635, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/3/06), 924 So.2d 266, 267 . 2007The absence of rulings is reviewable as a patent error. [6] State v. Christian, 05-635, p. 3 (La.App. 5th Cir. 2/3/06), 924 So.2d 266, 267 ; State v. Randolph, 409 So.2d 554, 555 (La.1981). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Thomasgreen2 sentences2006However, in State v. Thomas, 427 So.2d 428 (La.1982), on rehearing, the court warned against equating a patent error review with plain error. 2004However, in State v. Thomas, 427 So.2d 428 (La.1982), on rehearing, the court warned against equating a patent error review with plain error. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Weilandgreen2 sentences2005Lieutenant Detillier testified that he approached the vehicle after the Defendant was arrested. [6] This sentence is indeterminate, which is discussed as a patent error. [7] The Crosby plea serves as timely appeal under State v. Weiland, 556 So.2d 175, 176 (La.App. 5th Cir.1990). [8] See, Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13 , 68 S.Ct. 367, 369 , 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948), in which the United States Supreme Court suggested that the distinctive odor of a substance, perceived by an individual qualified to know the odor, might well be evidence of a persuasive character in determining probable caus 2002NOTES [1] In State v. Young, 96-0195 (La.10/15/96), 680 So.2d 1171, 1174 , the Louisiana Supreme Court held that LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 881.2(A)(2) encompassed plea agreements involving sentencing caps as well as specific sentences. [2] See State v. Stevenson, 00-1296 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/30/01) , 778 So.2d 1165, 1166 ; State v. Borchers, 97-67 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/28/97) , 695 So.2d 1054, 1057 , writ dismissed, 97-1715 (La.11/14/97), 703 So.2d 1254 . [3] State v. Stevenson, supra and State v. Borchers, supra . [4] LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 920; State v. Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La.1975); State v. Weiland, 556 So. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Schradergreen2 sentences2018Id. , see also La.Code Crim.P. art. 921. 1995"Whether a patent error, like other statutory error, requires reversal must be evaluated in light of the potential impact on the fairness of the proceedings." State v. Schrader, 518 So.2d 1024, 1037-38 (La.1988), cert. denied, Schrader v. Whitley, 498 U.S. 903 , 111 S.Ct. 265 , 112 L.Ed.2d 221 (1990) (quoting State v. White, 404 So.2d 1202, 1204-05 (La.1981)). | 1 | 2 |
| State Ex Rel. Simmons v. Staldergreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Williamsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Celestaingreen | 1 | 1 |
| State of Louisiana v. Keith C. Kisackgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State, in Interest of Jcggreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Turnbullgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hatchergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Campbellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Roegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Majorgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Wheelergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Huffmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Dominickgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hamptongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Thomasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Williamsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Robertsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Kellygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Robertgreen | 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. Douglas
neutral
2 sentences1974State v. Hampton, 274 So.2d 383 (La.1973); State v. Augustine, 263 La. 977 , 270 So.2d 118 (1972); State v. Douglas, 250 La. 480 , 196 So.2d 799 (1967). 1974State v. Hampton, 274 So.2d 383 (La.1973); State v. Augustine, 263 La. 977 , 270 So.2d 118 (1972); State v. Douglas, 250 La. 480 , 196 So.2d 799 (1967). | 11 | 1973–1974 |
State v. Fraser
green
2 sentences2001However, "[a]n appellate court may not correct a patent error which is favorable to the sole appellant in a criminal appeal." State v. Payn, 95-2166 (La.1/26/96), 666 So.2d 661 , citing State v. Fraser, 484 So.2d 122 (La.1986). 1988The court held that “... the amendment to [La.C.Cr.P.] Article 882 did not affect these basic procedural concepts, nor did it modify our holding in the Jackson case [State v. Jackson, 452 So.2d 682 (La.1984)].” The court reasoned, “Correction of a patent error, when the error is favorable to the only appellant, is contrary to the basic precepts of appellate practice and procedure, because a sole appellant’s position should not be worsened by his having appealed.” 484 So.2d at 125 . | 8 | 1986–2002 |
State v. Craddock
green
2 sentences2006State v. Turner, 337 So.2d 1090 (La.1976) and State v. Craddock, 307 So.2d 342 (La. 1975). 1994Although defendant recognizes that the jurisprudence holds that an error relating to the failure to object contemporaneously to a defect in the responsive verdicts is not patent error, he argues that the holding of these cases is wrong and that we should follow the dissenting, rather than the majority opinions in the two leading cases on the issue, State v. Turner, 337 So.2d 1090 (La.1976) and State v. Craddock, 307 So.2d 342 (La.1975). | 5 | 1981–2006 |
State v. Jackson
green
2 sentences1988The court held that "... the amendment to [La.C.Cr.P.] Article 882 did not affect these basic procedural concepts, nor did it modify our holding in the Jackson case [ State v. Jackson, 452 So.2d 682 (La.1984)]." The court reasoned, "Correction of a patent error, when the error is favorable to the only *634 appellant, is contrary to the basic precepts of appellate practice and procedure, because a sole appellant's position should not be worsened by his having appealed." 484 So.2d at 125 . 1988The court held that “... the amendment to [La.C.Cr.P.] Article 882 did not affect these basic procedural concepts, nor did it modify our holding in the Jackson case [State v. Jackson, 452 So.2d 682 (La.1984)].” The court reasoned, “Correction of a patent error, when the error is favorable to the only appellant, is contrary to the basic precepts of appellate practice and procedure, because a sole appellant’s position should not be worsened by his having appealed.” 484 So.2d at 125 . | 5 | 1985–1988 |
Ramos v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences2024NON -UNANIMOUS JURY VERDICT In the sole assignment of error, the defendant points out that the verdict was not unanimous Citing Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83 , 140 S. Ct. 1390 , 206 L.Ed.2d 583 ( 2020), the defendant contends that the non -unanimous verdict violates his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and is reviewable as a patent error.4 In Ramos, 590 U.S. at 83 , 140 S. Ct. at 1391 , the United States Supreme Court held that the right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, incorporated against the Stat 2024NON -UNANIMOUS JURY VERDICT In the sole assignment of error, the defendant points out that the verdict was not unanimous Citing Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83 , 140 S. Ct. 1390 , 206 L.Ed.2d 583 ( 2020), the defendant contends that the non -unanimous verdict violates his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and is reviewable as a patent error.4 In Ramos, 590 U.S. at 83 , 140 S. Ct. at 1391 , the United States Supreme Court held that the right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, incorporated against the Stat | 3 | 2020–2024 |
State v. Christian
green
2 sentences2011State v. Randolph, 409 So.2d 554 (La.1981), (per curiam)(on rehearing, 1982); State v. Christian, 05-635, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/3/06), 924 So.2d 266, 267 . 2007The absence of rulings is reviewable as a patent error. [6] State v. Christian, 05-635, p. 3 (La.App. 5th Cir. 2/3/06), 924 So.2d 266, 267 ; State v. Randolph, 409 So.2d 554, 555 (La.1981). | 3 | 2007–2011 |
State v. Cook
green
2 sentences2004In the case of State v. Cook, 396 So.2d 1258 (La.1981) a patent error review revealed an invalid verdict which necessitated the reversal of the defendant's conviction. 1982In the case of State v. Cook, 396 So.2d 1258 (La. 1981) a patent error review revealed an invalid verdict which necessitated the reversal of the defendant's conviction. | 3 | 1981–2004 |
Johnson v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences2021Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U. S. 356 , 92 S. Ct. 1620 , 32 L.Ed.2d 152 ( 1972), decided with Apodaca, upheld Louisiana' s then -existing constitutional and statutory provisions allowing non -unanimous jury verdicts in criminal cases. 3 by non -unanimous verdicts whose cases are still pending on direct appeal. 2021Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U. S. 356 , 92 S. Ct. 1620 , 32 L.Ed.2d 152 ( 1972), decided with Apodaca, upheld Louisiana' s then -existing constitutional and statutory provisions allowing non -unanimous jury verdicts in criminal cases. 3 by non -unanimous verdicts whose cases are still pending on direct appeal. | 2 | 2020–2021 |
State v. Clark
green
2 sentences2007In Clark, 711 So.2d 738 , this court found patent error resulted when the defendant was tried by a judge after having initially requested a jury trial, absent any subsequent written or oral waiver of the previous request. 1998In our prior opinion, State v. Clark, 97-1064 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/1/98) ; 711 So.2d 738 , we found the evidence sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction of D.W.I., fourth offense, but we noted as a patent error the absence of a waiver of trial by jury in the record. | 2 | 1998–2007 |
State v. Brown
neutral
2 sentences2006State v. Brown, 868 So.2d 775 (La.App. 1 Cir.2003) citing See State v. Augustine, 555 So.2d 1331, 1333-1334 (La.1990) and State v. Claxton, 603 So.2d 247, 250 (La.App. 1 Cir.1992). 2004State v. Brown, 868 So.2d 775 (La.App. 1 Cir.2003) citing See State v. Augustine, 555 So.2d 1331, 1333-1334 (La. 1990) and State v. Claxton, 603 So.2d 247, 250 (La.App. 1 Cir.1992). | 2 | 2004–2006 |
| State v. Anderson green | 2 | 2000–2001 |
| State v. Hampton green | 2 | 1974–1974 |
| Hall v. United States green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Scott neutral | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Barber neutral | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Frank neutral | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Ramos v. Louisiana green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Keys green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Apodaca v. Oregon red | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Golden green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Arizona v. Fulminante green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Hall green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Wilson green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Brooks green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Serio green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Serio neutral | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Bauman green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| STATE EX REL. CHISLEY v. State neutral | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Chisley green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Morgan green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Nanlal green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Lewis green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| United States v. Matthew Mortimer green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Champ green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Lewis green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Diana S. v. Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Aquamar S. A. v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Inversiones Errazuriz Limitada, Fka Inversiones Errazuriz S. A. v. State Street Bank & Trust Co green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Brown green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.