record shows defense in Louisiana

2017State v. Byrd, 2012-0556 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/5/13) , 119 So.3d 801 , writ denied 2013- 1589 (La. 1/27/14), 130 So.3d 957 .

2017State v. Byrd, 2012-0556 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/5/13) , 119 So.3d 801 , writ denied 2013- 1589 (La. 1/27/14), 130 So.3d 957 .

2017State v. Byrd, 2012-0556 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/5/13) , 119 So.3d 801 , writ denied 2013- 1589 (La. 1/27/14), 130 So.3d 957 .

2011Objections not made at the time of their occurrence are waived on appeal. *129 State v. Favors, 09-1034, p. 13 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/29/10), 43 So.3d 253, 261 , writ denied, 10-1761 (La.2/4/11), 57 So.3d 309 .

2011Objections not made at the time of their occurrence are waived on appeal. *129 State v. Favors, 09-1034, p. 13 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/29/10), 43 So.3d 253, 261 , writ denied, 10-1761 (La.2/4/11), 57 So.3d 309 .

2008In addition to Bruton , the defense in brief relies also on Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530, 545 , 106 S.Ct. 2056 , 90 L.Ed.2d 514 (1986), in which the Supreme Court held that a codefendant's confession is presumptively unreliable "as to the passages detailing the defendant's conduct or culpability because those passages may well be the product of the codefendant's desire to shift or spread blame, curry favor, avenge himself, or divert attention to another." The record shows that the defense failed to contemporaneously object to any of the errors alleged in these assignments of error.

2008In addition to Bruton , the defense in brief relies also on Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530, 545 , 106 S.Ct. 2056 , 90 L.Ed.2d 514 (1986), in which the Supreme Court held that a codefendant's confession is presumptively unreliable "as to the passages detailing the defendant's conduct or culpability because those passages may well be the product of the codefendant's desire to shift or spread blame, curry favor, avenge himself, or divert attention to another." The record shows that the defense failed to contemporaneously object to any of the errors alleged in these assignments of error.

1997See State v. Galliano, 93-1101, p. 6 n. 1 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/5/95); 655 So.2d 538 , 542 n. 1. [2] The record shows that the defense counsel noted his objection to the court's failure to sustain his challenge for cause of Allen after the entire jury panel was sworn; however, the challenges to the second panel of jurors, which included Allen, were apparently exercised in an "[o]ff record discussion." While the defense counsel's objection may not have been timely under LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 800(A), it is without merit, as will be discussed herein. [3] LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 770 states, in pertinent part: Upo

1996Although the record is not clear, it is not convincing to us that a full hearing was had on the merits presented. 477 So.2d at 832-33 .

1994State v. Code, 627 So.2d 1373 (La.1993).

1990This case is factually similar to State v. Haarala, 398 So.2d 1093 (La.1981), in which defense counsel claimed the court erred in failing to grant a continuance because counsel was told that some other case would be tried before his client's case.

1989State v. Mims, 263 La. 193 , 267 So.2d 570 (1972).

1989State v. Mims, 263 La. 193 , 267 So.2d 570 (1972).

1987State v. Jones, supra. The record shows no error in the trial judge's conclusion that all of the jurors could remain impartial despite these relationships.

1985Furthermore, we cannot say, as we have previously stated in Kliebert v. Watson Marines, supra, that the record shows that this hearing was not a limited one but rather a situation where both parties presented testimony, and the trial court permitted a full hearing on all issues in controversy and, therefore, the injunction had not been issued merely upon a prima *833 facie showing.

1978The State had a right to rebut the defendant's testimony on this subject. *1285 In criminal prosecutions, the court has required a defendant to exhibit his physical make-up: to put on a shirt, State v. Morgan, La., 333 So.2d 642 (1976); to exhibit a scar, State v. Anthony, La., 332 So.2d 214 (1976); to exhibit a tattoo, State v. Wilson, La., 329 So.2d 680 (1976); to show how he opens a cigarette package, State v. O'Conner, La., 320 So.2d 188 (1975); to show a bruise, State v. Washington, La., 294 So.2d 794 (1974); to stand and identify himself, State v. Jones, 261 La. 422 , 259 So.2d 899 (1972

1978The State had a right to rebut the defendant's testimony on this subject. *1285 In criminal prosecutions, the court has required a defendant to exhibit his physical make-up: to put on a shirt, State v. Morgan, La., 333 So.2d 642 (1976); to exhibit a scar, State v. Anthony, La., 332 So.2d 214 (1976); to exhibit a tattoo, State v. Wilson, La., 329 So.2d 680 (1976); to show how he opens a cigarette package, State v. O'Conner, La., 320 So.2d 188 (1975); to show a bruise, State v. Washington, La., 294 So.2d 794 (1974); to stand and identify himself, State v. Jones, 261 La. 422 , 259 So.2d 899 (1972

1978The State had a right to rebut the defendant's testimony on this subject. *1285 In criminal prosecutions, the court has required a defendant to exhibit his physical make-up: to put on a shirt, State v. Morgan, La., 333 So.2d 642 (1976); to exhibit a scar, State v. Anthony, La., 332 So.2d 214 (1976); to exhibit a tattoo, State v. Wilson, La., 329 So.2d 680 (1976); to show how he opens a cigarette package, State v. O'Conner, La., 320 So.2d 188 (1975); to show a bruise, State v. Washington, La., 294 So.2d 794 (1974); to stand and identify himself, State v. Jones, 261 La. 422 , 259 So.2d 899 (1972

1978The State had a right to rebut the defendant's testimony on this subject. *1285 In criminal prosecutions, the court has required a defendant to exhibit his physical make-up: to put on a shirt, State v. Morgan, La., 333 So.2d 642 (1976); to exhibit a scar, State v. Anthony, La., 332 So.2d 214 (1976); to exhibit a tattoo, State v. Wilson, La., 329 So.2d 680 (1976); to show how he opens a cigarette package, State v. O'Conner, La., 320 So.2d 188 (1975); to show a bruise, State v. Washington, La., 294 So.2d 794 (1974); to stand and identify himself, State v. Jones, 261 La. 422 , 259 So.2d 899 (1972

1978The State had a right to rebut the defendant's testimony on this subject. *1285 In criminal prosecutions, the court has required a defendant to exhibit his physical make-up: to put on a shirt, State v. Morgan, La., 333 So.2d 642 (1976); to exhibit a scar, State v. Anthony, La., 332 So.2d 214 (1976); to exhibit a tattoo, State v. Wilson, La., 329 So.2d 680 (1976); to show how he opens a cigarette package, State v. O'Conner, La., 320 So.2d 188 (1975); to show a bruise, State v. Washington, La., 294 So.2d 794 (1974); to stand and identify himself, State v. Jones, 261 La. 422 , 259 So.2d 899 (1972

1978The State had a right to rebut the defendant's testimony on this subject. *1285 In criminal prosecutions, the court has required a defendant to exhibit his physical make-up: to put on a shirt, State v. Morgan, La., 333 So.2d 642 (1976); to exhibit a scar, State v. Anthony, La., 332 So.2d 214 (1976); to exhibit a tattoo, State v. Wilson, La., 329 So.2d 680 (1976); to show how he opens a cigarette package, State v. O'Conner, La., 320 So.2d 188 (1975); to show a bruise, State v. Washington, La., 294 So.2d 794 (1974); to stand and identify himself, State v. Jones, 261 La. 422 , 259 So.2d 899 (1972

1978The State had a right to rebut the defendant's testimony on this subject. *1285 In criminal prosecutions, the court has required a defendant to exhibit his physical make-up: to put on a shirt, State v. Morgan, La., 333 So.2d 642 (1976); to exhibit a scar, State v. Anthony, La., 332 So.2d 214 (1976); to exhibit a tattoo, State v. Wilson, La., 329 So.2d 680 (1976); to show how he opens a cigarette package, State v. O'Conner, La., 320 So.2d 188 (1975); to show a bruise, State v. Washington, La., 294 So.2d 794 (1974); to stand and identify himself, State v. Jones, 261 La. 422 , 259 So.2d 899 (1972

1978The State had a right to rebut the defendant's testimony on this subject. *1285 In criminal prosecutions, the court has required a defendant to exhibit his physical make-up: to put on a shirt, State v. Morgan, La., 333 So.2d 642 (1976); to exhibit a scar, State v. Anthony, La., 332 So.2d 214 (1976); to exhibit a tattoo, State v. Wilson, La., 329 So.2d 680 (1976); to show how he opens a cigarette package, State v. O'Conner, La., 320 So.2d 188 (1975); to show a bruise, State v. Washington, La., 294 So.2d 794 (1974); to stand and identify himself, State v. Jones, 261 La. 422 , 259 So.2d 899 (1972

1978The State had a right to rebut the defendant's testimony on this subject. *1285 In criminal prosecutions, the court has required a defendant to exhibit his physical make-up: to put on a shirt, State v. Morgan, La., 333 So.2d 642 (1976); to exhibit a scar, State v. Anthony, La., 332 So.2d 214 (1976); to exhibit a tattoo, State v. Wilson, La., 329 So.2d 680 (1976); to show how he opens a cigarette package, State v. O'Conner, La., 320 So.2d 188 (1975); to show a bruise, State v. Washington, La., 294 So.2d 794 (1974); to stand and identify himself, State v. Jones, 261 La. 422 , 259 So.2d 899 (1972

1978The State had a right to rebut the defendant's testimony on this subject. *1285 In criminal prosecutions, the court has required a defendant to exhibit his physical make-up: to put on a shirt, State v. Morgan, La., 333 So.2d 642 (1976); to exhibit a scar, State v. Anthony, La., 332 So.2d 214 (1976); to exhibit a tattoo, State v. Wilson, La., 329 So.2d 680 (1976); to show how he opens a cigarette package, State v. O'Conner, La., 320 So.2d 188 (1975); to show a bruise, State v. Washington, La., 294 So.2d 794 (1974); to stand and identify himself, State v. Jones, 261 La. 422 , 259 So.2d 899 (1972

1978The State had a right to rebut the defendant's testimony on this subject. *1285 In criminal prosecutions, the court has required a defendant to exhibit his physical make-up: to put on a shirt, State v. Morgan, La., 333 So.2d 642 (1976); to exhibit a scar, State v. Anthony, La., 332 So.2d 214 (1976); to exhibit a tattoo, State v. Wilson, La., 329 So.2d 680 (1976); to show how he opens a cigarette package, State v. O'Conner, La., 320 So.2d 188 (1975); to show a bruise, State v. Washington, La., 294 So.2d 794 (1974); to stand and identify himself, State v. Jones, 261 La. 422 , 259 So.2d 899 (1972

1978The State had a right to rebut the defendant's testimony on this subject. *1285 In criminal prosecutions, the court has required a defendant to exhibit his physical make-up: to put on a shirt, State v. Morgan, La., 333 So.2d 642 (1976); to exhibit a scar, State v. Anthony, La., 332 So.2d 214 (1976); to exhibit a tattoo, State v. Wilson, La., 329 So.2d 680 (1976); to show how he opens a cigarette package, State v. O'Conner, La., 320 So.2d 188 (1975); to show a bruise, State v. Washington, La., 294 So.2d 794 (1974); to stand and identify himself, State v. Jones, 261 La. 422 , 259 So.2d 899 (1972

1978The State had a right to rebut the defendant's testimony on this subject. *1285 In criminal prosecutions, the court has required a defendant to exhibit his physical make-up: to put on a shirt, State v. Morgan, La., 333 So.2d 642 (1976); to exhibit a scar, State v. Anthony, La., 332 So.2d 214 (1976); to exhibit a tattoo, State v. Wilson, La., 329 So.2d 680 (1976); to show how he opens a cigarette package, State v. O'Conner, La., 320 So.2d 188 (1975); to show a bruise, State v. Washington, La., 294 So.2d 794 (1974); to stand and identify himself, State v. Jones, 261 La. 422 , 259 So.2d 899 (1972

1978The State had a right to rebut the defendant's testimony on this subject. *1285 In criminal prosecutions, the court has required a defendant to exhibit his physical make-up: to put on a shirt, State v. Morgan, La., 333 So.2d 642 (1976); to exhibit a scar, State v. Anthony, La., 332 So.2d 214 (1976); to exhibit a tattoo, State v. Wilson, La., 329 So.2d 680 (1976); to show how he opens a cigarette package, State v. O'Conner, La., 320 So.2d 188 (1975); to show a bruise, State v. Washington, La., 294 So.2d 794 (1974); to stand and identify himself, State v. Jones, 261 La. 422 , 259 So.2d 899 (1972

1978The State had a right to rebut the defendant's testimony on this subject. *1285 In criminal prosecutions, the court has required a defendant to exhibit his physical make-up: to put on a shirt, State v. Morgan, La., 333 So.2d 642 (1976); to exhibit a scar, State v. Anthony, La., 332 So.2d 214 (1976); to exhibit a tattoo, State v. Wilson, La., 329 So.2d 680 (1976); to show how he opens a cigarette package, State v. O'Conner, La., 320 So.2d 188 (1975); to show a bruise, State v. Washington, La., 294 So.2d 794 (1974); to stand and identify himself, State v. Jones, 261 La. 422 , 259 So.2d 899 (1972

1978The State had a right to rebut the defendant's testimony on this subject. *1285 In criminal prosecutions, the court has required a defendant to exhibit his physical make-up: to put on a shirt, State v. Morgan, La., 333 So.2d 642 (1976); to exhibit a scar, State v. Anthony, La., 332 So.2d 214 (1976); to exhibit a tattoo, State v. Wilson, La., 329 So.2d 680 (1976); to show how he opens a cigarette package, State v. O'Conner, La., 320 So.2d 188 (1975); to show a bruise, State v. Washington, La., 294 So.2d 794 (1974); to stand and identify himself, State v. Jones, 261 La. 422 , 259 So.2d 899 (1972

1921Grenier v. Couvillon, 109 La. 267 , 33 South. 309 , it is said: “Exception is made by the parties in interest that this rule has not been complied with, and, since an inspection of the record shows this exception to be well founded, the application is denied, at the cost of the relators.” The opposing parties, those in interest, in this case insist upon a full compliance with the rule, and the decision in the case of State ex rel.

1921Grenier v. Couvillon, 109 La. 267 , 33 South. 309 , it is said: “Exception is made by the parties in interest that this rule has not been complied with, and, since an inspection of the record shows this exception to be well founded, the application is denied, at the cost of the relators.” The opposing parties, those in interest, in this case insist upon a full compliance with the rule, and the decision in the case of State ex rel.