Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Domino, 102 So. 2d 227.

29 citing documents.

State v. Wiley 513 So. 2d 849 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State v. Arnold 466 So. 2d 520 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
State v. McDonald 387 So. 2d 1116 La. 1980
State v. Marmillion, 339 So.2d *1122 788 (La.1976); , (1958); State v. Terrell, 175 La.
State v. McGraw 366 So. 2d 1278 La. 1979
State v. Sepulvado 342 So. 2d 630 La. 1977
State v. Marmillion 339 So. 2d 788 La. 1976
State v. Prather 290 So. 2d 840 La. 1974
(1958); State v. Suire, 142 La.
State v. Arnold 249 So. 2d 552 La. 1971
881 , ; , ; State v. Crovetto, 229 La.
State v. Hall 242 So. 2d 239 La. 1970
State v. Jones 204 So. 2d 775 La. 1967
793 , ; , ; and State v. Melerine, 236 La.
State v. Fruge 204 So. 2d 287 La. 1967
2d 848 ; , ; State v. Clark, 228 La.
State v. Andrus 199 So. 2d 867 La. 1967
State v. Johnson 192 So. 2d 135 La. 1966
The Free and Voluntary Character of the Confessions The free and voluntary character of the inculpatory admissions, reenactments and confessions, all of which are governed by the same rules ( , (1958)), present questions for the trial judge; and his ruling will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous.
State v. Carter 181 So. 2d 763 La. 1966
State v. Simien 178 So. 2d 266 La. 1965
Long established guidelines to be applied in determining the admissibility of confessions in criminal cases are clearly expressed *273 , (1958) as follows: "The question of the admissibility of a confession is for the judge, its effect for the jury, and whether a sufficient basis was laid for the admission of an alleged voluntary confession is a question of fact upon which the ruling of the trial judge will not be disturbed un
State v. Forsythe 144 So. 2d 536 La. 1962
State v. Di Vincenti, supra, and authorities there cited; , .
State v. Bueche 142 So. 2d 381 La. 1962
223 , ; , ; State v. Palmer, 232 La.
State v. Scott 141 So. 2d 389 La. 1962
State v. Fulghum 138 So. 2d 569 La. 1962
163 , ; State v. Hilliard, supra.” , .
State v. Brown 136 So. 2d 394 La. 1962
*402 , , is applicable to the present matter: “The motion in arrest of judgment is 'a reiteration of the matters complained of in the various bills of exception heretofore disposed of and which require no further comment.
State v. Maney 135 So. 2d 473 La. 1961
State v. Palmer, 232 La.
State v. Thomas 135 So. 2d 275 La. 1961
State v. Rogers 132 So. 2d 819 La. 1961
State v. Gatlin 129 So. 2d 4 La. 1961
793 , ; , and State v. Melerine, 236 La.
Humble Oil & Refining Company v. Jones 125 So. 2d 640 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
the parties with respect to the royalty due and the proper method of computing and paying it" and were not therefore controlling, but "In fact, they are authority for the proposition that private contractual rights in these leases are only superseded when they are in conflict with valid orders of the Commissioner of Conservation, i. e., when the order is a conservation measure, pure and simple", .
State v. Linkletter 120 So. 2d 835 La. 1960
State v. Bickham 121 So. 2d 207 La. 1960
State v. Davis 111 So. 2d 778 La. 1959
State v. Melerine 109 So. 2d 454 La. 1959