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. Boudreaux, 304 So. 2d 343.

20 citing documents.

  • State v. Brown 750 So. 2d 262 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
  • State v. Johnson 665 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
  • State v. Nicholas 652 So. 2d 666 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • State v. Loyden 597 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    260 (1932); State v. Brawley, La., (1977); State v. Humble, La., (1975); State v. Boudreaux, La., (1974).
  • State v. Johnson 534 So. 2d 1322 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
    And, in Thompson , wherein it held that an affidavit may be held adequate if a commonsense construction suggests the information is current and not stale.
  • State v. Barber 445 So. 2d 463 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • State v. Vincent 439 So. 2d 1124 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    We reject both of these arguments because the overall context of the affidavit includes the affirmative representation that the detective knew who the informant was, and, by reciting that Buddy "was selling" () drugs, suggests that "earlier" means earlier "on May 8, 1981" or perhaps during the previous night (for by 7 a.m.
  • State v. Bruno 427 So. 2d 1174 La. 1983
  • State v. Trahan 425 So. 2d 1222 La. 1983
  • State v. Tate 407 So. 2d 1131 La. 1981
    this court recognized that an affidavit is adequate if a common-sense construction of the face of the affidavit tends to establish that the information contained *1133 therein was current and not stale.
  • State v. Liner 397 So. 2d 506 La. 1981
  • State v. Loehr 355 So. 2d 925 La. 1978
  • State v. Segers 355 So. 2d 238 La. 1978
    this court, when faced with the same issue now presented, stated: "The absence of a date for each episode described in the affidavit is not fatal, however, The language of the affidavit, including the use of the present tense, *242 indicates that the affiants are describing a course of conduct continuing to
  • State v. Thompson 354 So. 2d 513 La. 1978
    State v. Brawley, La., (1977); State v. Humble, La., (1975); State v. Boudreaux, La., (1974).
  • State v. Brawley 347 So. 2d 238 La. 1977
  • State v. Turner 337 So. 2d 1090 La. 1976
    (emphasis added) Confronted with this question of timeliness, citing Sgro , stated: "The absence of a date for each episode described in the affidavit is not fatal, however.
  • State v. Roach 322 So. 2d 222 La. 1975
    State v. Paciera, supra .
  • State v. Martin 318 So. 2d 25 La. 1975
    State v. Humble, La., (1975); State v. Boudreaux, La., (1974); State v. Paciera , La., supra; Spinelli v. United States, supra.
  • State ex rel. Smith v. Henderson 315 So. 2d 275 La. 1975
  • State v. Humble 309 So. 2d 138 La. 1975