Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Conway, 816 So. 2d 290.

36 citing documents.

State Of Louisiana v. Bertie Randall Hicks La. 2025
4/12/02), and State v. Pierre , 13 - 0873 (La.
Jarvis Ballard v. State of Louisiana La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
4/12/02), and State v. Pierre, 13-0873 (La.
State Ex Rel. Darrell J. Robinson v. Darrel Vannoy, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Angola, Louisiana La. 2024
4/12/02), where this Court held: “assuming that a claim of ‘actual innocence’ not based on DNA evidence under La.C.Cr.P.
Wilbert Jones v. State Of Louisiana La. 2023
4/12/02), and State v. Pierre, 13-0873 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Demetrius D. Nash La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
4/12/02), While still unsettled as to whether a non-DNA-based actual innocence claim was cognizable on post-conviction collateral review prior to the enactment of La.Code Crim.P.
State Of Louisiana v. Brittany Tyson La. 2022
4/12/02), and State v. Pierre, 13 -0873, (La.
Joseph E. Dickerson Versus Tim Hooper, Warden Louisiana State Penitentiary La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
4/12/02), a bona fide claim of actual innocence must involve evidence that is “new, material, [and] noncumulative.” The trial court’s judgment The trial court did not articulate any findings about “actual innocence” in its reasons for judgment.
State Of Louisiana v. Justin Charles Singleton La. 2021
State of Louisiana v. Brittany Tyson La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2021
4/12/02), (assuming post-conviction claims of actual innocence not based on DNA evidence are cognizable, they must be supported by new, material, noncumulative and conclusive evidence which meets an extraordinarily high standard, and which undermines the prosecution’s entire case).
State Of Louisiana v. Frederick D. Barrow La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
4/ 12/ 02), ( per curiam) .
State Of Louisiana v. Gregory Savage La. 2020
State Of Louisiana v. Stanley Lindsey La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
State of Louisiana Versus Frank Kang La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2020
State of Louisiana v. Darrell Toubya Thomas La. 2019
4/12/02), (assuming post-conviction claims of actual innocence not based on DNA evidence are cognizable, they must be supported by new, material, noncumulative and conclusive evidence which meets an extraordinarily high standard, and which undermines the prosecution’s entire case).
State v. Tyson 267 So. 3d 584 La. 2019
4/12/02), , 291 (assuming post-conviction claims of actual innocence not based on DNA evidence are cognizable, they must be supported by new, material, noncumulative and conclusive evidence which meets an extraordinarily high standard, and which undermines the prosecution's entire case).
State ex rel. Rebardi v. State 253 So. 3d 1291 La. 2018
State v. Leblanc 240 So. 3d 918 La. 2018
State v. Grigsby 237 So. 3d 508 La. 2018
State ex rel. Perot v. State 219 So. 3d 324 La. 2017
State v. Lacaze 208 So. 3d 856 La. 2016
4/12/02), , with “new material, noncumulative and conclusive evidence which meets an extraordinarily high standard, and [undermines] the prosecution’s entire case.” Specifically, he revisits the theory that Adam was the male perpetrator, based on post-conviction testimony from Ofc.
State v. Chester 208 So. 3d 338 La. 2016
4/12/02), , and |1fifurther articulated in State v. Pierre, 13-0873 (La.
State ex rel. Weiters v. State 206 So. 3d 178 La. 2016
State v. Paul 202 So. 3d 995 La. 2016
4/12/02), (assuming post-conviction claims of actual innocence not based on DNA evidence are cognizable, they must be supported by “new, material, noncumulative and conclusive evidence which meets an extraordinarily high standard, and which undermin[e]s the prosecution’s entire case.”).
State ex rel. Odom v. State 202 So. 3d 995 La. 2016
State ex rel. Quatrevingt v. State 198 So. 3d 123 La. 2016
art. 930.2; State v. Conway, 01-2808 (La.4/12/02); .
State v. Blank 192 So. 3d 93 La. 2016
His póst-conviction attempt to overturn his conviction and sentence by presenting evidence which in his view casts doubt on the reliability of his confession falls short of the high standard contemplated in State v. Conway, 01-2808 (La.4/12/02), , and further articulated’ in State v. Pierre, 13-0873 (La.
Burrell v. State 184 So. 3d 246 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
See State v. Conway, 2001-2808 (La.04/12/02); .
State of Louisiana v. Ronald Marshall 177 So. 3d 324 La. 2015
State v. Hurst 209 So. 3d 701 La. 2015
1173 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959); see also State v. Pierre, 13-0873 (La.10/15/13), ; State v. Conway, 01-2808 (La.4/12/02), .
Jones v. Cain 151 So. 3d 781 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See State v. Conway, 01-2808 (La.4/12/02), .
State v. Pierre 125 So. 3d 403 La. 2013
By the end of the hearings, respondent’s Claim Three had become embroiled in the standard proposed by this Court in State v. Conway, 01-2808 (La.4/12/02), , for free-standing, post-conviction claims of actual innocence not based on DNA evidence.
State v. Allen 55 So. 3d 757 La. 2011
For the above reasons, I would grant the relator’s application and remand the case to the district coui*t and order that it consider whether Ms. Robateau’s testimony “undermine[s] the prosecution’s entire case,” thereby satisfying the standard set out in State v. Conway, 2001-2808 (La.4/12/02), , requiring the vacation of relator’s conviction, unless the state establishes that the events not under its control have prejudiced its ability to “respond to, negate, or rebut” the newly discovered evid
State v. Singer 45 So. 3d 171 La. 2010
art. 930.8, the evidence does not constitute “new, material, noncumulative and conclusive evidence, which meets an extraordinarily high standard, and which undermine[s] the prosecution’s entire case” as set out in State v. Conway, 01-2808 (La.4/12/02), .
State v. Edwards 988 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
The cases of State v. Conway, 01-2808 (La.04/12/02), , and State v. Robertson, 42,247 (La.App.2d Cir.06/25/07), , are both “alternate and inconsistent theories of defense” cases (a tactic prohibited in State v. Juluke, 98-0341(La.01/08/99), ).
State v. Matthis 970 So. 2d 505 La. 2007
State v. Conway, 01-2808, p. 1 (La.4/12/02), (assuming that claims of actual innocence not based on DNA evidence are cognizable in post-conviction proceedings, such a claim must involve new, material, noncumulative and conclusive evidence which undermines the prosecution's entire case)(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
State v. Robertson 958 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
The trial court denied relief, finding that applicant failed to show an "articulable *788 doubt" as to his innocence that DNA testing would resolve, citing the standard set forth in State v. Conway, 01-2808 (La.04/12/02), .