Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Murray, 357 So. 2d 1121.

40 citing documents.

  • State v. Hayes 16 So. 3d 604 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    rev’d on other grounds, State v. Skipper, 2004-2137 (La.6/29/05), .
  • State of Louisiana v. Gregory John Ruiz La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    See, reversed on other grounds.
  • State v. Ruiz 3 So. 3d 671 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    See, reversed on other grounds.
  • State v. Baker 970 So. 2d 948 La. 2008
    rev'd on other grounds, State v. Skipper, 2004-2137 p. 24 (La.6/29/05), .
  • State v. Sims 973 So. 2d 177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
  • State of Louisiana v. Todd Vincent Edwards La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    and any appellate decisions, as discussed herein, which stand for the proposition that a prior conviction must be placed in the charging instrument of the second or subsequent drug-related offense or proved to the jury in order to enhance the sentence of a drug-related felony under L
  • State v. Edwards 963 So. 2d 419 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
  • State v. Ruiz 955 So. 2d 81 La. 2007
    See, reversed on other grounds.
  • State v. Smith 952 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
  • State of Louisiana v. Timothy E. Robertson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    and any appellate decisions, as discussed herein, which stand for the proposition that a prior conviction must be placed in the charging instrument of the second or subsequent drug-related offense or proved to the jury in order to enhance the
  • State v. Robertson 931 So. 2d 523 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • State v. Ruiz 931 So. 2d 472 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • State of Louisiana v. Gregory John Ruiz La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    and any appellate decisions, as discussed herein, which stand for the proposition that a prior conviction must be placed in the charging instrument of the second or subsequent drug-related offense or proved to the jury in order to enhance the sentence of a drug-related felony under L
  • State of Louisiana v. Desmond Joseph Senegal La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    and any appellate decisions, as discussed herein, which stand for the proposition that a prior conviction must be placed in the charging instrument of the second or subsequent drug-related offense or proved to the jury in order to enhance the sentence of a drug-related felony und
  • State v. Senegal 931 So. 2d 450 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • State v. Garner 913 So. 2d 874 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    overruled on other grounds, State v. Skipper, 2004-2137 (La.6/29/05), .
  • State v. Skipper 906 So. 2d 399 La. 2005
    the defendant was found guilty of distribution of a controlled dangerous substance.
  • State v. White 907 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    Additionally, however, our supreme court held: By statute, the district attorney is accorded wide discretion in determining when and how he shall prosecute.
  • State v. Iverson 855 So. 2d 835 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
  • State v. Palmer 834 So. 2d 16 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
  • State v. Howard 814 So. 2d 47 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
  • State v. Wells 815 So. 2d 1063 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    In so holding, like their Third Circuit brethren, the court relied on the supreme court cases
  • State v. Johnson 796 So. 2d 201 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
  • State v. Lee 778 So. 2d 656 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
  • State v. King 757 So. 2d 731 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
  • State v. Myers 753 So. 2d 898 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
  • State v. Franklin 693 So. 2d 219 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
  • State v. Nicholas 652 So. 2d 666 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • State v. Rodriguez 572 So. 2d 358 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
  • State v. Matthieu 506 So. 2d 1209 La. 1987
  • State v. Rogers 494 So. 2d 1251 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • State v. Harris 478 So. 2d 233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    -43 (La.1979); ” , at page 1021 (La.App.
  • State v. Braxton 458 So. 2d 1017 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Green 454 So. 2d 885 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    and compare, State v. Bienvenu, 260 La.
  • State v. Tanner 432 So. 2d 1186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    A, but our procedure does not authorize the use of the motion to suppress to test the admissibility of evidence constitutionally seized.” State v. Dudek, 263 La.
  • State v. Duncan 420 So. 2d 1105 La. 1982
  • State v. Dowling 387 So. 2d 1165 La. 1980
  • State Ex Rel. Halvorsen v. Blackburn 388 So. 2d 806 La. 1980
  • State v. Hicks 376 So. 2d 118 La. 1979
  • State v. Wilson 362 So. 2d 536 La. 1978