State v. Hollins

11 Citing cases

  1. Young v. Cain

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-cv-2759 (W.D. La. Feb. 11, 2019)

    In Louisiana, a conviction may be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, although the jury should be instructed to treat such testimony with great caution. State v. Hollins, 15 So.3d 69, 71 (La. 2009). A cautionary accomplice instruction is not required if there is material corroboration of the accomplice's testimony.

  2. State v. Lightfoot

    318 So. 3d 1033 (La. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 4 times

    Under La.C.Cr.P. art. 807, a requested special jury charge shall be given by the court if it does not require qualification, limitation or explanation, and if it is wholly correct and pertinent; however, the special charge need not be given if it is included in the general charge or in another special charge to be given. State v. Hollins , 2008-1033, p. 3 (La. 6/26/09), 15 So.3d 69, 71. Failure to give a requested jury instruction constitutes reversible error only when there is a miscarriage of justice, prejudice to the substantial rights of the accused, or a substantial violation of a constitutional or statutory right. Id.

  3. State v. McBride

    239 So. 3d 383 (La. Ct. App. 2018)

    Additionally, the Louisiana Supreme Court has stated (notwithstanding the separate issue of a trial court's refusal to give requested, precautionary jury instructions) that as a general proposition of Louisiana law, uncorroborated accomplice testimony is sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. State v. Hollins , 08-1033, p. 4 (La. 6/26/09), 15 So.3d 69, 71 (citingState v. Tate , 01-1658, p. 4-5 (La. 5/20/03), 851 So.2d 921, 928, cert. denied , 541 U.S. 905, 124 S.Ct. 1604, 158 L.Ed.2d 248 (2004) ). Here, the jury apparently chose to believe Love's testimony that he saw defendant wrap a shirt around his face, exit his vehicle, and open fire on the victims' vehicle.

  4. State v. Sizemore

    129 So. 3d 860 (La. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 6 times

    According to the defendant, Kristyn returned approximately thirty minutes later, and he noticed nothing odd about her appearance or behavior thereafter. In State v. Hollins, 08–1033, p. 4 (La.6/26/09), 15 So.3d 69, 71–72 (footnotes and citations omitted), the supreme court addressed convictions based on accomplice testimony, stating: In Louisiana, as a general principle of law, a conviction may be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of a purported accomplice, although the jury should be instructed to treat such testimony with great caution.

  5. State v. Kato

    157 So. 3d 695 (La. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 4 times

    However, some portions of the argument go to the elements of the crime rather than the witness's credibility. The case Defendant cites, State v. Hollins, 08–1033 (La.6/26/09), 15 So.3d 69, stands for the principle that a jury should be instructed that an accomplice's uncorroborated testimony should be viewed with great caution. Defendant does not argue whether the jury was so instructed in his case; rather, he claims that a principle of caution regarding accomplice testimony applies to his sufficiency of the evidence argument.

  6. State v. Seals

    83 So. 3d 285 (La. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 49 times
    Finding that "the trial judge did not err by refusing to read defendant's special jury instruction because it was not wholly correct under LSA–C.Cr.P. art. 807 in that it did not track the language of LSA–R.S. 15:432" where La. R.S. 15:432 was the relevant statute defining the subject matter of the special charge

    129. State v. Hollins, 08–1033, p. 3 (La.6/26/09), 15 So.3d 69, 71. 130.

  7. State v. McElveen

    73 So. 3d 1033 (La. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 35 times
    Holding that “where the initial disparate pattern of strikes has been shown to be unrelated to any intent on the part of the prosecutor, the defendant is required to make a second prima facie analysis as to any subsequent strikes”

    The special charge need not be given if it is included in the general charge or in another special charge to be given. State v. Hollins, 08–1033, p. 3 (La.6/26/09), 15 So.3d 69, 71. Failure to give a requested jury instruction constitutes reversible error only when a miscarriage of justice, prejudice to the substantial rights of the accused, or a substantial violation of a constitutional or statutory right exists. Id.

  8. State v. Mcelveen

    No. 2010-KA-0172 (La. Ct. App. Sep. 28, 2011)

    The special charge need not be given if it is included in the general charge or in another special charge to be given. State v. Hollins, 08-1033, p. 3 (La. 6/26/09), 15 So.3d 69, 71. Failure to give a requested jury instruction constitutes reversible error only when a miscarriage of justice, prejudice to the substantial rights of the accused, or a substantial violation of a constitutional or statutory right exists. Id.

  9. State v. Boyer

    56 So. 3d 1119 (La. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 16 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Referring to Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101

    The trial court noted that "there is significant evidence that the Court has seen that does corroborate the accomplice's statement, as well as the statement of the defendant, and for those reasons found that the precautionary statement on accomplice was not appropriate." Both the trial court and Defendant referred to State v. Hollins, 08-1033, pp. 4-5 (La.6/26/09), 15 So.3d 69, 71-73, wherein the supreme court discussed special instructions to the jury regarding accomplice testimony: Under La.C.Cr.P. art. 807, a requested special jury charge shall be given by the court if it does not require qualification, limitation or explanation, and if it is wholly correct and pertinent.

  10. State v. Boyer

    Nos. 10-693 c/w 10-694 (La. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2011)

    The trial court noted that "there is significant evidence that the Court has seen that does corroborate the accomplice's statement, as well as the statement of the defendant, and for those reasons found that the precautionary statement on accomplice was not appropriate." Both the trial court and Defendant referred to State v. Hollins, 08-1033, pp. 4-5 (La. 6/26/09), 15 So.3d 69, 71-73, wherein the supreme court discussed special instructions to the jury regarding accomplice testimony: Under La.C.Cr.P. art. 807, a requested special jury charge shall be given by the court if it does not require qualification, limitation or explanation, and if it is wholly correct and pertinent.