Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Allen, 203 So. 2d 705.

21 citing documents.

State v. Carter 664 So. 2d 367 La. 1995
1974); , (1967); City of New Orleans v. Cook, 249 La.
State v. Chapman 367 So. 2d 808 La. 1979
State v. Ferguson 358 So. 2d 1214 La. 1978
State v. Ball 328 So. 2d 81 La. 1976
1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967); , (1967).
State v. Daniels 326 So. 2d 340 La. 1976
State v. Graves 301 So. 2d 864 La. 1974
1094 , (1971); , (1967).
State v. Lewis 296 So. 2d 824 La. 1974
State v. St. Amand 274 So. 2d 179 La. 1973
The court found, moreover, that the in-court identifications were based upon observations of the suspect other than the lineup identification, stating, "This court, , (1967), to the factual situation of this particular case, found that the witness had, in fact, an opportunity to observe the defendant, Ervin St.
State v. Wilkerson 259 So. 2d 871 La. 1972
Bill No. 1 Relying upon Article 703 , (1967), defense counsel filed a motion on May 15, 1970 to suppress any testimony identifying the accused, alleging that the evidence of identification the prosecution would present was tainted by the lineup conducted prior to trial on February 28, 1970.
State v. Pierre 259 So. 2d 6 La. 1972
State v. Smith 255 So. 2d 734 La. 1971
State v. Jackson 254 So. 2d 259 La. 1971
State v. Singleton, 253 La.
State v. Amphy 249 So. 2d 560 La. 1971
981 , (1969); , (1967); See also State v. Junius, 257 La.
State v. Mixon 248 So. 2d 307 La. 1971
and Rivers v. United States, C.A.5 (1968), 400 F.2d 935 .” (Emphasis ours) In this case, we are satisfied that the witnesses’ “in-court” identifications were of an origin independent of the lineup of December 21st.
State v. Square 244 So. 2d 200 La. 1971
State v. Johnson 230 So. 2d 825 La. 1970
State v. Miller, 254 La.
State v. Lewis 229 So. 2d 726 La. 1969
concerned line-up and in-court identification, matters not presently urged.
State v. Henderson 221 So. 2d 480 La. 1969
in which the identical issue posed here was urged and in determining the applicability of the Wade case, we expressed our appreciation of the holding in the latter case to be: “A courtroom identification at the trial, based upon pre-trial lineup identification without the benefit of counsel, is a dep
State v. Singleton 215 So. 2d 838 La. 1968
and Rivers v. United States, C.A.
State v. LaCaze 215 So. 2d 511 La. 1968
861 , ; , ; State v. Cardinale, 251 La.
State v. Dean 209 So. 2d 16 La. 1968
1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 ; , ), no violation of a constitutional right (Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution) is presented here but rather, the well-established Ameri *47 can rule that custodial out-of-court identifications are receivable in evidence as objections thereto are referable to their weight and not their ad