Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Marshall, 359 So. 2d 78.

19 citing documents.

State v. Delanueville 90 So. 3d 15 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
(Emphasis supplied); see also State v. Mahogany, 07-360 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Sherri Ann Sepulvado La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Sepulvado 59 So. 3d 463 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Mahogany 970 So. 2d 1150 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
State v. Hebert 930 So. 2d 1039 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
State v. Strickland 683 So. 2d 218 La. 1996
this Court held that the policies underlying the exclusionary rule and the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine were not advanced by forbidding the armed robbery victims to testify that they saw a pistol in the defendant's hand before the unconstitutional search and seizure.
State v. Daniels 619 So. 2d 148 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
State v. James 499 So. 2d 721 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
In an earlier decision, the Supreme Court said that it is permissible to allow testimony concerning tangible evidence that has been suppressed, if that testimony is of facts which were learned by the witness at a time and place unrelated to the illegality which caused the suppression.
State v. Marshall 479 So. 2d 598 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Welch 449 So. 2d 468 La. 1984
1244 , 63 L.Ed.2d 537 (1980)
State v. DeHart 445 So. 2d 419 La. 1984
State v. Johnson 438 So. 2d 1221 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
15:490, 491, or the witness' credibility may be attacked only insofar as his credibility in the case on trial is concerned, La.R.S.
State v. Harriman 434 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
U.S. v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463 , 100 S.Ct.
State v. Vaughn 431 So. 2d 358 La. 1983
State v. Chaisson 425 So. 2d 745 La. 1983
State v. Roubique 421 So. 2d 859 La. 1982
*863 : The rule which supports the views expressed here is not new.
State v. Martin 400 So. 2d 1063 La. 1981
State v. Stevenson 390 So. 2d 1292 La. 1980
15:490, 491, or the witness' credibility may be attacked only insofar as his credibility in the case on trial is concerned, La.R.S.
State v. Johnson 371 So. 2d 1155 La. 1979
this court held that the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine required the exclusion of evidence obtained from an unlawful search and seizure, but did not prevent introduction of testimony which referred, at a time before any illegal seizure, to evidence which had been suppressed because of a subsequent i