DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Dotson, 256 So. 2d 594.

164 citing documents.

  • State v. Oliver 430 So. 2d 650 La. 1983
  • State v. Zamora 430 So. 2d 274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    (citations omitted), the Louisiana Supreme Court said: “The informer privilege is the privilege of withholding the identity of an informant who supplies information to law enforcement officials concerning crime.
  • State v. Taylor 430 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Tonubbee 420 So. 2d 126 La. 1982
  • State v. Moore 419 So. 2d 963 La. 1982
    State v. Dotson [ ], (1971).
  • State v. Smith 418 So. 2d 515 La. 1982
    *524 (La.1978); , (1971).
  • State v. Davis 411 So. 2d 434 La. 1982
    On the question of whether the defendant can overcome the informer privilege and learn the name of the confidential informant, , , Cert.
  • State v. James 396 So. 2d 1281 La. 1981
    623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957); , U.S. cert.
  • State v. MacDonald 390 So. 2d 1276 La. 1980
  • Distinguished State v. Matthews 382 So. 2d 917 La. 1980
    The trial court sustained the state’s , (1971), wherein this Court held that the defendant was entitled to know the identity of the informant because of the allegations that the evidence was planted on him.
  • State v. Ireland 377 So. 2d 299 La. 1979
    in which we stated: "* * * The majority rule is that communication between a juror and a witness in a criminal trial without a showing that the defendant was prejudiced furnishes no ground for upsetting a conviction.
  • State v. Rogers 375 So. 2d 1304 La. 1979
    and authorities therein cited at .
  • State v. Daniel 378 So. 2d 1361 La. 1979
  • State v. Armoneit 373 So. 2d 158 La. 1979
    In the instant case, there is not simply a bare allegation that there must have been a “frame-up” or “plant” ( , [1972].)
  • State v. Babbitt 363 So. 2d 690 La. 1978
    State v. Robinson, supra ; State v. Russell, supra ; , (1971), cert.
  • State v. Diliberto 362 So. 2d 566 La. 1978
    For these reasons, and because the first-hand showing by the officers of their own observations and hearing sufficiently in itself indicates probable cause, the defendant has not met his burden of proving the exceptional circumstances, , (1971), that require pre-trial disclosure by the state of the identity of a confidential informer who supplied information leading to probable cause for issuance of a search warrant.
  • State v. Williams 362 So. 2d 530 La. 1978
  • State v. Titus 358 So. 2d 912 La. 1978
  • State v. Drew 360 So. 2d 500 La. 1978
    State v. Robertson, No. 60,909, State v. King, supra ; , (1971), cert.
  • State v. Murray 357 So. 2d 1121 La. 1978
    State v. Mims, La., (1976); , (1971).
  • State v. Weems 358 So. 2d 285 La. 1978
    See State v. de la Beckwith, supra; , .
  • State v. Robertson 358 So. 2d 931 La. 1978
    State v. King, Nos. 60,732 and 60,733, , (1971).
  • State v. King 355 So. 2d 1305 La. 1978
  • State v. Edwards 354 So. 2d 1322 La. 1978
    State v. Hunter, La., (1977); State v. Drake, La., (1975); State v. Freeman, La., (1975); , (1971).
  • State v. Holmes 354 So. 2d 1282 La. 1977
  • State v. Provost 352 So. 2d 661 La. 1977
    State v. Hayes, supra ; State v. Freeman, supra ; , (1971); State v. Wright, 254 La.
  • State v. Brown 352 So. 2d 690 La. 1977
  • State v. Elzie 351 So. 2d 1174 La. 1977
    -09 (1971), as follows: "To admit demonstrative evidence at a trial, the law requires that the object be identified.
  • State v. Bryant 351 So. 2d 1188 La. 1977
    (1971), this Court stated: "To admit demonstrative evidence at a trial, the law requires that the object be identified.
  • State v. Barrow 352 So. 2d 635 La. 1977
  • State v. Edwards 351 So. 2d 500 La. 1977
  • State v. Brooks 350 So. 2d 1174 La. 1977
  • State v. Helmke 350 So. 2d 1191 La. 1977
    (1971) we discussed this privilege more fully as follows: The informer privilege is the privilege of withholding the identity of an informant who supplies information to law enforcement officials concerning crime.
  • State v. Barrett 350 So. 2d 664 La. 1977
    (1971), this Court stated: "To admit demonstrative evidence at a trial, the law requires that the object be identified.
  • State v. Sheppard 350 So. 2d 615 La. 1977
  • State v. Charles 350 So. 2d 595 La. 1977
    -09 (1971) this Court set forth the rules pertaining to the introduction of demonstrative evidence as follows: "To admit demonstrative evidence at a trial, the law requires that the object be identified.
  • State v. Forbes 348 So. 2d 983 La. 1977
    (1971), this Court stated: "To admit demonstrative evidence at a trial, the law requires that the object be identified.
  • State v. Anthony 347 So. 2d 483 La. 1977
  • State v. Williams 347 So. 2d 184 La. 1977
  • State v. Francis 345 So. 2d 1120 La. 1977
  • State v. Williams 346 So. 2d 181 La. 1977
    (1971), we stated: "To admit demonstrative evidence at a trial, the law requires that the object be *187 identified.
  • State v. Madison 345 So. 2d 485 La. 1977
  • State v. Mitchell 344 So. 2d 1026 La. 1977
  • State v. Stuart 344 So. 2d 1006 La. 1977
    (1971), we held: "To admit demonstrative evidence at a trial, the law requires that the object be identified.
  • State v. Lee 343 So. 2d 1060 La. 1977
  • State v. McMorris 343 So. 2d 1011 La. 1977
  • State v. Hunter 343 So. 2d 143 La. 1977
  • State v. Tassin 343 So. 2d 681 La. 1977
    (1971), dealing with the admissibility of evidence tending to show that defendant had previously used drugs after a defendant denied prior use, this Court stated: "In State v. Monroe, 205 La.
  • State v. De La Beckwith 344 So. 2d 360 La. 1977
    State v. Robinson, supra; , (1971), Cert.
  • State v. Hall 342 So. 2d 616 La. 1977
    State v. Rhodes, La., (1975); State v. Howard, La., (1973); , (1971).