Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Ferguson, 124 So. 2d 558.

19 citing documents.

State v. Evins 626 So. 2d 480 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
-68 (1960) (on rehearing), cert.
State v. Butler 615 So. 2d 496 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
State v. Johnson 598 So. 2d 1288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
State v. Thomas 470 So. 2d 413 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
-68 (1960) (on rehearing), cert.
State, in Interest of Giangrosso 395 So. 2d 709 La. 1981
(1961) (a case factually similar to this case); State v. Davis, 241 La.
State v. Drew 360 So. 2d 500 La. 1978
State v. Gibbs 355 So. 2d 1299 La. 1978
(1960), in which a part of the charge given was similar to the one under consideration, to be to the contrary.
State v. Mullins 353 So. 2d 243 La. 1977
42 , (1963); State v. Ferguson, on rehearing, , (1960); State v. Williams, 129 La.
State v. Monk 315 So. 2d 727 La. 1975
State v. Douglas 235 So. 2d 563 La. 1970
Counsel argues that the State failed to carry the burden of establishing that the confession given by appellant was free and voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt as required in some of our decisions (see State v. Ferguson, on rehearing, , , and the cases there cited) ; that, additionally, appellant was denied the right to remain silent and to invoke his privilege against self-incrimination and that he was not informed of all his substantive rights as provided in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 ,
State v. Collins 217 So. 2d 182 La. 1968
610 , ; , [on rehearing] and authorities there cited; and State v. Carter, 248 La.
State v. Carter 181 So. 2d 763 La. 1966
State v. McAllister 150 So. 2d 557 La. 1963
We are not informed as to why the trial judge ruled as he did, and from the record brought up we do not understand why the three deputies and the investigator were permitted to remain in the courtroom during the progress of the trial while all other witnesses, both for the State and for the defense, were put under the rule.” See, , ; 366 U.S. 913 , 81 S.Ct.
State v. Scott 141 So. 2d 389 La. 1962
15:451, 452, and Article I; Section 11 of the Constitution of 1921, , , “This Court has consistently demanded a strict compliance with the constitutional provision and, in a legion of cases, it has been repeatedly stated that the State has the burden of establishing that a confession is free and voluntary by affirmative convincing proof before it can be received in
State v. Ricks 138 So. 2d 589 La. 1962
State v. Rideau 137 So. 2d 283 La. 1962
State v. Jenkins, 236 La.
State v. Thomas 135 So. 2d 275 La. 1961
State v. Rogers 132 So. 2d 819 La. 1961
71 , ; 361 U.S. 834 , 80 S. Ct. 85 , 4 L.Ed.2d 75 ; , .
State v. Davis 132 So. 2d 866 La. 1961
estion of present sanity, and no useful purpose could have been served by sequestration of the witnesses in this instance.” Article 371 of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes it discretionary with the trial judge whether he will order the sequestration of witnesses in a criminal case; and under the jurisprudence of this court it is now well settled, as stated in State v. Ferguson (on rehearing), , , that “It is only when the exercise of the discretion is shown to be arbitrary or unreasonable an