Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Weeks, 345 So. 2d 26.

21 citing documents.

State of Louisiana Versus Fernando H. Darocha La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2021
ld that “Miranda warnings are not a pre-requisite to admissibility of statements taken by officers during noncustodial, general, on-the-scene investigations, conducted to determine the facts and circumstances surrounding a possible crime, absent a showing that the investigation has passed the investigatory stage and has focused on the accused.” Estes, 168 So.3d at 860 ( (La.
State of Louisiana v. Ray Donald Brister, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
(where the court found that despite defendant’s contention that the statements were involuntary because she was upset and stressed, the record amply supported a finding that the defendant was sufficiently in possession of her mental faculties to make the statements voluntary).
STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS READO NARGO A/K/A RENALDO NARGO La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
(where the court found that despite defendant’s contention that the statements were involuntary because she was upset and stressed, the record amply supported a finding that the defendant was sufficiently in possession of her mental faculties to make the statements voluntary).
State v. Nargo 193 So. 3d 1263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
(where the court found that despite defendant’s contention that the statements were, involuntary because she was upset and stressed, the record amply supported a finding that the defendant was sufficiently in possession of her mental faculties to make the statements voluntary).
State v. Estes 168 So. 3d 847 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
ana Supreme Court has consistently held that “Miranda warnings are not a pre-requisite to admissibility of statements taken by officers during noncustodial, general, on-the-scene investigations, conducted to determine the facts and circumstances surrounding a possible crime, absent a showing that the investigation has passed the investigatory stage and has focused on the accused.” (emphasis as found in original).
State v. Allen 955 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
the Louisiana Supreme Court held, "Miranda warnings are not a pre-requisite to admissibility of statements taken by officers during non-custodial, *755 general, on-the-scene investigations, conducted to determine the facts and circumstances surrounding a possible crime, absent a showing that the investi
State v. Blackson 865 So. 2d 272 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
State v. Carter 767 So. 2d 839 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
the court explained that Miranda warnings must be given where the investigation of a crime has passed the investigatory stage and focused on the accused.
State v. Hartman 479 So. 2d 948 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
[, writ den., ] In Hartman's case the investigation had not yet focused on the accused.
State v. Hocum 456 So. 2d 602 La. 1984
State v. Jackson 452 So. 2d 1250 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Doucet 443 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Edwards 406 So. 2d 1331 La. 1981
State v. Thompson 399 So. 2d 1161 La. 1981
State v. White 399 So. 2d 172 La. 1981
State v. Catanese 368 So. 2d 975 La. 1979
State v. Drew 360 So. 2d 500 La. 1978
State v. Hebert 356 So. 2d 991 La. 1978
See State v. Weeks, La., (1977).
State v. Vinet 352 So. 2d 684 La. 1977
(1972); McCormick on Evidence, § 207 (2d ed. 1972); Annotation, Physiological or Psychological Truth and Deception Tests, 23 A.L.R.2d 1306 .
State v. Henry 352 So. 2d 643 La. 1977
State v. Schouest 351 So. 2d 462 La. 1977
*469 (La.1973); State v. Refuge, 264 La.