Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Davis, 336 So. 2d 805.

17 citing documents.

State v. Lee 868 So. 2d 256 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
State v. Brown 808 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Gray 526 So. 2d 1268 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
State v. Wells 522 So. 2d 1163 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
It was not identified merely as a knife "similar"
State v. Doan 519 So. 2d 174 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
State v. Green 493 So. 2d 1178 La. 1986
15:435, 441 (1981); State v. Foret, 196 La.
State v. Scott 490 So. 2d 396 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
State v. Joseph 454 So. 2d 237 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
Since the weapon used to commit the offense of armed robbery need not be produced in order to establish that the offense of armed robbery was committed, (La.App.
State v. Williams 449 So. 2d 60 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
State v. Beck 445 So. 2d 470 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Harper 430 So. 2d 627 La. 1983
State v. Robertson 421 So. 2d 843 La. 1982
State v. Gould 395 So. 2d 647 La. 1981
We wish to observe that in a while not finding reversible error, we noted that the "practice here followed is discouraged, because of its inherent possibility of prejudice and in order to assure that an accused is convicted only on the basis of legally admissible evidence."
State v. Landry 388 So. 2d 699 La. 1980
State v. Manieri 378 So. 2d 931 La. 1979
State v. Qualls 353 So. 2d 978 La. 1977
See, e. g., State v. Fink, 255 La.
State v. Young 344 So. 2d 983 La. 1977
: "* * * In securing evidence, the state may not obtain a first statement by violation of constitutional safeguards, and then claim that a second confession secured by reason of the illegal first confession is admissible because (directly as the result of the first illegal admissions) the accused now again fr