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. Montoya, 340 So. 2d 557.

34 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Jaylon K. Brown La. 2024
    Additionally, the Louisiana Supreme Court has carved out jurisprudential exceptions to the rule requiring contemporaneous objection, (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Harrison Buckner Doyle La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
    There, the Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant’s silence in response to Miranda warnings cannot be used for impeachment during cross- examination.3
  • State v. Howard 258 So. 3d 66 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
  • State of Louisiana v. Jaime Brooks Day La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    12/11/09), in support of her argument.
  • State v. Day 158 So. 3d 120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    2 Cir. 2/25/09), , writ denied, 09-696 (La.12/11/09), ; in support of her argument.
  • State v. Duong 148 So. 3d 623 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Adams 142 So. 3d 265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Washington 72 So. 3d 422 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    In a case like this one, where the defendant does not take the stand, “there is even less justification here for the State to call attention to his silence at the time of arrest than there was in Doyle , because the argument cannot be made that he was under cross-examination and thus fair game for impeachment by use of his silence at the time of his arrest.”
  • State v. Joseph 71 So. 3d 549 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Both counsel for Joseph and Patterson liken their clients’
  • State v. Langston 3 So. 3d 707 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
  • State v. Olivieri 860 So. 2d 207 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
  • State v. Iverson 855 So. 2d 835 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
  • State v. Jones 648 So. 2d 472 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
  • State v. Stelly 635 So. 2d 725 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • State v. Trackling 598 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
    where the court ruled that it was reversible error for the prosecutor to call attention to the arrestee's silence at the time of the arrest.
  • State v. Carroll 546 So. 2d 1365 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
  • State v. Prince 520 So. 2d 778 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    2240 , 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976); State v. Montoya, *783
  • State v. Landry 502 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    2133 , 45 L.Ed.2d 99 (1975)
  • State v. Carmouche 499 So. 2d 1227 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    Since the state had gotten no statement by defendant against his interest
  • State v. Williams 447 So. 2d 495 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    for the proposition that it is reversible error for the prosecution, during direct examination of a police officer, to elicit testimony regarding the defendant's silence at the time of arrest, since the defendant did not take the stand and may not be impeached by evidence of his silence at the time of his ar
  • State v. Sam 412 So. 2d 1082 La. 1982
    This court followed Doyle v. Ohio, supra
  • State v. Kersey 406 So. 2d 555 La. 1981
    this Court held that the decision in Doyle also applied to instances where a defendant did not take the stand.
  • State v. Mattheson 407 So. 2d 1150 La. 1981
    2240 , 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976)
  • State v. Brown 395 So. 2d 1301 La. 1981
    holding it was reversible error for the prosecutor to elicit from arresting officers the fact defendant did not respond to police questioning, is inapposite.
  • State v. Mosley 390 So. 2d 1302 La. 1980
    2240 , 49 L.Ed.2d 91 , to support his contention that this sort of prosecutorial examination is reversible error.
  • State v. Williams 375 So. 2d 931 La. 1979
  • State v. Bell 373 So. 2d 184 La. 1979
  • State v. Bergeron 371 So. 2d 1309 La. 1979
  • State v. Procell 365 So. 2d 484 La. 1978
  • State v. Muse 363 So. 2d 462 La. 1978
  • State v. Taylor 363 So. 2d 699 La. 1978
  • State v. Coleman 358 So. 2d 289 La. 1978
    Having found no reversible error, we once again reiterate the need for legislative attention to clarification of the statutory presumption in the light of the above principles, as well as the need for extreme care by trial courts which still give the instruction, or prosecutors who argue it, so that its effects, in the context of the entire charge and of clarifying language, are limited to those above-indicated as permissible—that the emphasis or reiteration of the presumption is
  • State v. Brown 354 So. 2d 516 La. 1978
  • State v. O'QUINN 342 So. 2d 202 La. 1977
    The charge was not objectionable for the reasons stated by the defense (but see