Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Bernard, 31 So. 3d 1025.
- State of Louisiana v. Wanda Ledet La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2026
- State of Louisiana v. Darrion A. Brown La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
- State of Louisiana v. Kelvin Atkins La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
- State of Louisiana v. Jamarkus Ardoin La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
-
State v. Bibbins
258 So. 3d 134
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
3/16/10), , 1030, indicated that because the "trial judge charged the *146 jury at the conclusion of trial, ...
- State ex rel. D.S. 255 So. 3d 1209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
- State of Louisiana v. Jeffery Lynn Jones La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
- State v. Jones 254 So. 3d 1221 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
- State v. Brazell 245 So. 3d 15 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
- State v. Dixon 241 So. 3d 514 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
- State ex rel. W.B. 206 So. 3d 974 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
-
State v. Morgan
193 So. 3d 123
La. 2016
As reiterated in State v. Bernard, 09-1178, p. 5 (La.3/16/10); , “Miranda only applies if three conditions are met: (1) the defendant is in ‘custody’ or significantly deprived of freedom, (2) there is an ‘interrogation,’ and (3) the interrogation is conducted by a ‘law enforcement officer’ or someone acting as their agent.” See also United States v. Maddox, 492 F.2d 104, 10
-
State v. Caston
170 So. 3d 152
La. 2015
On a motion to suppress where the “facts are not in dispute, the reviewing court must consider whether the trial court came to the proper legal determination under the undisputed facts.” State v. Bernard, 09-1178, p. 16 (La.3/16/10), , quoting State v. Pham, 01-2199, p. 4 (La.App.
-
State v. Lloyd
161 So. 3d 879
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
State v. Bernard, 2009-1178 (La.3/16/10), .
-
State ex rel. A.J.
151 So. 3d 659
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
The foregoing passage makes clear Miranda “only applies if three conditions are met: (1) the defendant is in ‘custody or significantly deprived of freedom, (2) there is an ‘interrogation,’ and (3) the interrogation is conducted by a ‘law enforcement officer’ or someone acting as their agent.” State v. Bernard, 09-1178, p. 5 (La.3/16/10), .
-
State in the Interest of N. F.
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
3/16/10), as the authoritative case for this issue.
-
State ex rel. N.F.
124 So. 3d 1262
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Both defense counsel and the State recognize State v. Bernard, 09-1178 (La.3/16/10), , as the authoritative case for this issue.
-
State v. Diggins
126 So. 3d 770
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
“The testimony of a police officer may encompass information provided by another individual without constituting hearsay, if it is offered to explain the course of the police investigation and the steps leading to the defendant’s arrest.” State v. Maise, 00-1158, p. 17 (La.1/15/02), , overruled on other grounds by State v. Bernard, 09-1178, p. 7 (La.3/16/10), ; see State v. Legendre, 05-1469, pp. 11-14 (La.App.
-
Oliver v. MAGNOLIA CLINIC
85 So. 3d 39
La. 2012
See State v. Bernard, 09-1178 (La.3/16/10), -30 .
-
State v. Bishop
68 So. 3d 1197
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
See State v. Bernard, 09-1178, p. 6 (La.3/16/10), .