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. Newman, 283 So. 2d 756.

58 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Eric E Irons La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
  • State v. Brown 223 So. 3d 88 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
  • State v. Johnson 182 So. 3d 1039 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
  • State v. Dussett 126 So. 3d 593 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State v. Gullette 975 So. 2d 753 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
  • State v. Pickney 714 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
  • State v. Smith 687 So. 2d 529 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
  • State v. Seals 684 So. 2d 368 La. 1996
  • State v. Crawford 672 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    certiorari denied, 415 U.S. 930 , 94 S.Ct.
  • State v. James 592 So. 2d 867 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
  • State v. Brown 588 So. 2d 1317 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
  • State v. Swayze 554 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • State v. Worthen 550 So. 2d 399 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Colvin 494 So. 2d 1357 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    State v. Davis, supra; (La.
  • State v. Evans 485 So. 2d 161 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    State v. Davis, supra, *164 (La.App.
  • State v. Marshall 479 So. 2d 598 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    1975) on rehearing; and her testimony did not clearly establish a valid identification of defendant.
  • State v. Lewis 478 So. 2d 665 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • State v. McLeland 456 So. 2d 633 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Robertson 454 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Clark 437 So. 2d 879 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Chapman 436 So. 2d 451 La. 1983
  • State v. Demouchet 353 So. 2d 1025 La. 1977
    State v. Fortenberry, La., (1975); State v. Moseley, La., (1973); State v. Newman, La., , supra.
  • State v. Cass 356 So. 2d 936 La. 1977
  • State v. McZeal 352 So. 2d 592 La. 1977
  • State v. Collins 350 So. 2d 590 La. 1977
  • State v. Spears 350 So. 2d 603 La. 1977
    In State v. Newman, La., (1973), we stated: "Due process prohibits the conduct of an identification procedure in a manner that it is unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification.
  • State v. Taylor 347 So. 2d 172 La. 1977
    State v. Williams, La., (1976); State v. Newman, La., (1973), and the cases cited therein.
  • State v. Madison 345 So. 2d 485 La. 1977
    However, when an in-court identification has a source independent of the tainted procedure, it does not violate the accused's due process rights, *491 (La.1975)
  • State v. Frank 344 So. 2d 1039 La. 1977
    State v. Lee, La., (1976); State v. Maduell, La., (1976); State v. Newman, La., (1973), cert.
  • State v. Williams 341 So. 2d 370 La. 1976
    The one-on-one identification procedure, not at all favored in our law, Foster v. California, supra ., was suggestive and therefore impermissible.
  • State v. McCray 337 So. 2d 1158 La. 1976
    Defendant relies, inter alia
  • State v. Russell 334 So. 2d 398 La. 1976
    State v. Newman, No. 53,422 on the docket of this Court handed down on September 24, 1973, ; State v. Amphy, 259 La.
  • State v. Kenner 336 So. 2d 824 La. 1976
  • State v. Anthony 332 So. 2d 214 La. 1976
  • State v. Johnson 333 So. 2d 223 La. 1976
    Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 , 93 S.Ct.
  • State v. Rudolph 332 So. 2d 806 La. 1976
    1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967)
  • State v. Judson 329 So. 2d 742 La. 1976
    we stated that a determination of whether the witness' in-court identification was based on an independent source involves three factors: (1) the prior acquaintance of the witness with the accused; (2) the length of time the witness observed the perpetrator before, during and after the offense; and (3) the
  • State v. Nix 327 So. 2d 301 La. 1975
  • State v. Peevy 321 So. 2d 324 La. 1975
  • State v. Watts 320 So. 2d 146 La. 1975
  • State v. Price 325 So. 2d 780 La. 1975
    we stated that a determination of whether the witness' in-court identification was based on an independent source involves three factors: (1) the prior acquaintance of the witness with the accused; (2) the length of time the witness observed the perpetrator before, during, and after the offense; and (3) the
  • State v. Batiste 318 So. 2d 27 La. 1975
  • State v. Lepkowski 316 So. 2d 727 La. 1975
  • Distinguished State v. Wright 316 So. 2d 380 La. 1975
    (La.1973) relied upon by defendants is distinguishable in several respects, including the circumstances attending the asserted suggestive procedures, and significant differences with respect to the independent source for the in court identification, in the respective cases.
  • State v. Nance 315 So. 2d 695 La. 1975
    1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967); State v. Newman, La., (1973).
  • State v. Bland 310 So. 2d 622 La. 1975
  • State v. Williams 310 So. 2d 528 La. 1975
  • State v. Rhodes 308 So. 2d 770 La. 1975
    State v. Newman, La., (1973).
  • State v. Fortenberry 307 So. 2d 296 La. 1975
    this court stated the following factors to be considered in determining whether there was a sufficient independent basis for the in-court identification: "Even if the out-of-court identification was tainted, if the in-court identification had a source independent of the out-of-court identification, the in-c
  • State v. Graves 301 So. 2d 864 La. 1974
    1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967); State v. Amphy, 259 La.