State v. Bannister
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | JOHNSON |
| Citation | State v. Bannister, 670 So.2d 1223 (La. 1996) |
| Decision Date | 29 March 1996 |
| Parties | 96-0118 La |
In re State of Louisiana;--Plaintiff(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, prohibition, supervisory and/or Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. "D", No. 378-343; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 95CA-2366.
Granted. Judgment of the court of appeal is vacated and set aside. The requirements of State v. Bernard 608 So.2d 966 (La.1992) have been met. Judgment of the trial court is reinstated.
JOHNSON, J., would deny the writ.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
2 cases
-
State v. Odenbaugh
...reversed, granting the State's application and holding that the State had satisfied the requirements of Bernard, State v. Bannister, 96-0188 (La. 3/2/96), 670 So.2d 1223, 1224. In the instant case, defense counsel complains that despite repeated requests, the State did not provide notice of......
-
State v. Odenbaugh
...one is not always required. State v. McDermitt, 406 So.2d 195, 201 (La.1981); State v. Hatcher, 372 So.2d 1024, 1027 (La.1979). In State v. Bannister, 95–2366 (La.App. 4th Cir.12/18/95), the court of appeal granted the defendant's writ application and held that “[t]he defense is entitled to......
