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.
11 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2022 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. Simmonsgreen1 sentence2022Cr.P. art. 807; State v. Simmons, 422 So. 2d 138, 141 ( La. 1982). 22 Herein, the motion for the proposed jury instruction cites Prestridge and the proposed instruction contains the following language: If you believe that any witness in the case, either for the State or the defense, has willfully and deliberately testified falsely to any material fact for the purpose of deceiving you, then I charge you that you are justified in disregarding the entire testimony of such witness as proving nothing and unworthy of belief. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Spearsgreen1 sentence2011See State v. Spears, 39,302, (La.App. 2 Cir. 9/27/06), 940 So.2d 135 , writ denied, 06-2704 (La.8/31/07), 962 So.2d 424 , cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1312 , 128 S.Ct. 1888 , 170 L.Ed.2d 747 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Spearsgreen1 sentence2011See State v. Spears, 39,302, (La.App. 2 Cir. 9/27/06), 940 So.2d 135 , writ denied, 06-2704 (La.8/31/07), 962 So.2d 424 , cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1312 , 128 S.Ct. 1888 , 170 L.Ed.2d 747 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lombardgreen1 sentence2004See State v. Lombard, 486 So.2d 106 [(La.1986)]. | 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. Ward
green
2 sentences2017In State v. Guillory, 97-179, p. 40 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/11/98), 715 So.2d 400, 422 , writ denied, 98-955 (La. 10/9/98), 726 So.2d 17 , Defendant requested the following proposed jury instruction: The Court instructs the jury that the law looks with suspicion and distrust on the testimony of an accomplice or a snitch who provides evidence against a defendant for partial immunity from punishment, or for pay, or for other personal advantage. 2016In State v. Guillory, 97-179, p. 40 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/11/98), 715 So.2d 400, 422 , writ denied, 98-955 (La. 10/9/98), 726 So.2d 17 , the defendant requested the following proposed jury instruction: The Court instructs the jury that the law looks with suspicion and distrust on the testimony of an accomplice or a snitch who provides evidence against a defendant for partial immunity from punishment, or for pay, or for other personal advantage. | 2 | 2016–2017 |
State v. Guillory
green
2 sentences2017In State v. Guillory, 97-179, p. 40 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/11/98), 715 So.2d 400, 422 , writ denied, 98-955 (La. 10/9/98), 726 So.2d 17 , Defendant requested the following proposed jury instruction: The Court instructs the jury that the law looks with suspicion and distrust on the testimony of an accomplice or a snitch who provides evidence against a defendant for partial immunity from punishment, or for pay, or for other personal advantage. 2016In State v. Guillory, 97-179, p. 40 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/11/98), 715 So.2d 400, 422 , writ denied, 98-955 (La. 10/9/98), 726 So.2d 17 , the defendant requested the following proposed jury instruction: The Court instructs the jury that the law looks with suspicion and distrust on the testimony of an accomplice or a snitch who provides evidence against a defendant for partial immunity from punishment, or for pay, or for other personal advantage. | 2 | 2016–2017 |
Ramos v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences2022In support of the proposed jury instruction, the defendant argued in Ramos v. Louisiana, ___ U.S. ___, 140 S. Ct. 1390 , 206 L. 2022In support of the proposed jury instruction, the defendant argued in Ramos v. Louisiana, ___ U.S. ___, 140 S. Ct. 1390 , 206 L. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Crosby
green
1 sentence2020However, Crosby appeals are limited to the principles articulated in Crosby, 338 So. 2d at 591 : "[ t] he type of error ... [ that] represents a violation of a constitutional or statutory right which, for reasons beyond guilt or innocence, would mandate a reversal of a conviction resulting from a trial." A proposed jury instruction that was legally correct at the time it was to be given is not the type of error envisioned by Crosby. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
MCI Communications Services, Inc. v. Hagan
green
1 sentence2011We accepted the certified question presented to this court by the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, in MCI Communications Services, Inc. v. Hagan, 641 F.3d 112 (5th Cir.2011). 1 The question is this: “Is the proposed jury instruction in this case, which states that ‘[a] Defendant may be held liable for an inadvertent trespass resulting from an intentional act,’ a correct statement of Louisiana law when the trespass at issue is the severing of an underground cable located on property owned by one of the alleged trespass[e]rs, and the property is not subject to a servitude by the ow | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Triplex Communications, Inc. v. Riley
green
2 sentences2011In Triplex, the defendant submitted a proposed jury instruction which defined “unlawful means” to include “negligence or the violation of a statute or law.” Id., 900 S.W.2d at 719 . 2011In Triplex, the defendant submitted a proposed jury instruction which defined “unlawful means” to include “negligence or the violation of a statute or law.” Id., 900 S.W.2d at 719 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Renz v. Texas & Pacific Railway Company
green
1 sentence2004The court, after giving notice to the parties, may recall the jury after they have retired: (1) To correct or withdraw an erroneous instruction. (2) To clarify an ambiguous instruction. (3) To inform the jury on a point of law which should have been covered in the original instructions. (4) To give such further instructions as may be appropriate. (emphasis added) [4] Copies of the proposed jury instruction are in the record. [5] Renz v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co., 138 So.2d 114 (La.App. 3 Cir.1962). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Peterson
green
1 sentence2000See La.Code Crim.P. art. 807 and State v. Peterson, 96-1663 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/4/97) ; 696 So.2d 211 , writ denied, 97-1742 (La.11/26/97); 703 So.2d 644 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Peterson
green
1 sentence2000See La.Code Crim.P. art. 807 and State v. Peterson, 96-1663 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/4/97) ; 696 So.2d 211 , writ denied, 97-1742 (La.11/26/97); 703 So.2d 644 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.