Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Young, 35 So. 3d 1042.

25 citing documents.

State of Louisiana Versus Byron Franklin La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
State Of Louisiana v. James Bishop La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana Versus Felton Thompson La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
State Of Louisiana v. Jerrell Alexander La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
State of Louisiana Versus Teddy Chester La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2021
State Of Louisiana v. Jason W. Thomas La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
State of Louisiana v. Charles Middleton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
State v. Middleton 275 So. 3d 440 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
State v. Mosley 223 So. 3d 158 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
State v. Lee 217 So. 3d 1266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
4/5/10), , in which the Defendant provided notice of his intent to offer expert testimony regarding the vulnerabilities of eyewitness identification.
State v. Lambert 191 So. 3d 630 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
| ^Defendant acknowledges that Louisiana does not permit expert testimony on the issue of eyewitness identification, citing State v. Young, 09-1177 (La.4/5/10), , as thé controlling case on the issue.
State v. Farrier 162 So. 3d 1233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Young 09-1177, p. 9 (La.4/5/10), .
State v. Porter 151 So. 3d 871 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Young, 09-1177, pp. 7-8 (La.4/5/10), .
State v. Henry 147 So. 3d 1143 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See State v. Young, 2009-1177, pp. 13-14 (La.4/5/10), -1050 (expert testimony on eyewitness identifications can be more prejudicial than probative because it focuses on the things that produce error without reference to those factors that improve the accuracy of identifications; expert testimony presumes a misidentifieation, in the absence of presenting factors whic
State of Louisiana v. Isiah Demon Lively La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State v. Lively 153 So. 3d 1061 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
The gist of Defendant’s argument on appeal is that eyewitness identifications can be imperfect according to State v. Young, 09-1177 (La.4/5/10), , cert.
Arceneaux v. Shaw Group, Inc. 103 So. 3d 1086 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
See State v. Young, 2009-1177, p. 8 (La.4/5/10), , cert.
State v. Golden 95 So. 3d 522 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Young, 2009-1177, pp. 7-9 (La.4/5/10), -47 .
State v. Anderson 85 So. 3d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
The Louisiana Supreme Court has long held that expert testimony on the issue of eyewitness identification is inadmissible— “it is undisputed that the admissibility of expert testimony on eyewitness identification has been uniformly barred by this Court on the occasions the issue has been raised.” State v. Young, 2009-1177, p. 9 (La.4/5/10), , cert.
State v. Marlowe 81 So. 3d 944 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
The court set forth the applicable law concerning the trial court’s gatekeeping function in the qualification of expert witnesses *970 under Daubert in State v. Young, 2009-1177, pp. 7-9 (La.4/5/10), -47 , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Ricky Joseph Langley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Langley 61 So. 3d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
See, e.g., State v. Young, 09-1177 (La.4/5/10), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. H. A., Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
4/5/10), and this court should not “second 5 guess” the jury’s credibility assessment “beyond the sufficiency evaluations under the Jackson standard of review.” Kennerson, 695 So.2d at 1371.
State v. HA, SR. 47 So. 3d 34 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
It is “the exclusive province of the jury” to assess the credibility of witnesses who testify at trial, State v. Young, 09-1177, p. 13 (La.4/5/10), , and this court should not “second | nguess” the jury’s credibility assessment “beyond the sufficiency evaluations under the Jackson standard of review.” Kennerson, 695 So.2d at 1371 .
State v. Lamonica 44 So. 3d 895 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Notably, the supreme court has placed limitations on this codal provision in that, “[ejxpert testimony, while not limited to matters of science, art or skill, cannot invade the field of common knowledge, experience and education of men.” see State v. Young, 09-1177 (La.4/5/10), -47 .