DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State in Interest of Dino, 359 So. 2d 586.

114 citing documents.

  • State v. Watkins 526 So. 2d 357 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
    In State v. Menne, supra p. 19 , the court, quoting from State in The Interest of Dino, cert.
  • State v. Buxton 525 So. 2d 614 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    State in Interest of Dino, writ den.
  • State v. Belton 525 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    It is argued that the procedures for protection of the juvenile's constitutional right against self-incrimination as set out in State In the Interest of Dino, cert.
  • State v. Jackson 523 So. 2d 251 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
    State in Interest of Dino, cert.
  • State v. Johnson 508 So. 2d 953 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
    In its application before this Court
  • State v. Brown 507 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    He relies upon State In The Interest of Dino, (La.
  • State v. Hawkins 490 So. 2d 594 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    In Singleton , the defendant argued that the only facts establishing probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant of his home were those obtained from Grogan, a juvenile, whose statement was taken in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights as ennunciated by the Louisiana Supreme Court in State in Interest of Dino, U.S. cert.
  • State v. Burge 486 So. 2d 855 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    See State In The Interest of Dino, cert.
  • State v. Roux 487 So. 2d 1226 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    This rule is purportedly gleaned from State in the Interest of Dino, cert.
  • State v. Johnson 479 So. 2d 344 La. 1985
  • State v. Braud 475 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
    State in the Interest of Dino
  • State v. Handley 453 So. 2d 1242 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    Defendant urges that the more stringent three-prong test to determine voluntariness of a juvenile confession adopted by the Louisiana Supreme Court in State in the Interest of Dino, rather than the "totality of circumstances" test, should have been applied to the instant determination.
  • State v. Stevenson 447 So. 2d 1125 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    He contends that the state failed to prove compliance with the requirements of State In The Interest of Dino, (La.
  • State ex rel. Sterling 441 So. 2d 372 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967), the Louisiana Supreme Court observed in State in the Interest of Dino, “[t]he Constitutional privilege against self-incrimination and the rights to counsel and to confront and examine witnesses are [as] applicable in the case of juveniles as they are with adult accuseds.
  • State v. Johnson 432 So. 2d 815 La. 1983
    1118 (1951); -43 (La.1980); State of Louisiana in the Interest of Dino, cert.
  • State v. Walker 430 So. 2d 1327 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Smith 431 So. 2d 111 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    In State in the Interest of Dino, the Court stated that the prerequisites necessary to establish a knowing and intelligent waiver by a juvenile are that the juvenile must actually consult with an attorney or adult before waiving his rights; that the attorney or adult must be interested in the welfare of the juvenile; and, if an adult other
  • State v. Toussaint 429 So. 2d 206 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    He contends that the requirements of State in Interest of Dino, were not followed.
  • State v. Shea 421 So. 2d 200 La. 1982
    [3] State in the Interest of Dino, U.S. cert, den., Louisiana v. Dino, 439 U.S. 1047 , 99 S.Ct.
  • State v. Rebstock 418 So. 2d 1306 La. 1982
    State in the Interest of Dino, requires a "meaningful consultation", , and it is doubtful that one took place here.
  • State ex rel. Williams 411 So. 2d 590 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Secondly, he maintains the police investigators who procured the confession did not follow the requirements of State in the Interest of Dino, rehearing denied 1978.
  • State in Interest of Francois 411 So. 2d 588 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    In the case of State In Interest of Dino, our Supreme Court expanded on these principles as they are applied to juveniles.
  • State v. Rodrigue 409 So. 2d 556 La. 1982
  • State v. Willie 410 So. 2d 1019 La. 1982
  • State v. Matthews 408 So. 2d 1274 La. 1982
    L. Hargrave, The Declaration of Rights of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974, 35 La.L.
  • State v. Edwards 406 So. 2d 1331 La. 1981
    In briefs to this Court, defendant asks the Court to hold that the requirements set forth in State in the Interest of Dino, should apply equally to persons seventeen years of age as well as to juveniles (i. e., those under seventeen).
  • State in Interest of Aaron 405 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    1976 , 29 L.Ed.2d 647 (1971); State In Interest of Dino
  • State in Interest of Banks 402 So. 2d 690 La. 1981
  • State v. Hudson 404 So. 2d 460 La. 1981
    [*] In this appeal from a conviction of second degree murder defendant's principal contention is that his confession to police two days after the murder, at which time he was 16 years old, resulted from an interrogation conducted without a prior consultation with an attorney or an informed adult, in violation of the requirements of State in the Interest of Dino, (La.
  • State, in Interest of Giangrosso 395 So. 2d 709 La. 1981
    See State in the Interest of Dino
  • State v. Kent 391 So. 2d 429 La. 1981
    Admissibility of Shepard's Testimony In questioning the admissibility of Shepard's testimony, defendant premises his first argument on the illegality of his own confession (which allegedly led to Shepard's arrest) asserting that the confession was taken in violation of the jurisprudential guidelines expounded by this court in State in the Interest of Dino, (La.
  • State, in Interest of Hunter 387 So. 2d 1086 La. 1980
    Cf. State v. Everfield, supra ; Note, A Cautious Step Forward, 39 La.L.Rev.
  • In Re Grand Jury Subpoenas 387 So. 2d 1140 La. 1980
    Both counsel for Dr. Graham, as provisional tutor, and the court-appointed counsel contend that State in the Interest of Dino, is controlling, and that the grand jury subpoenas were properly quashed.
  • State v. Vernon 385 So. 2d 200 La. 1980
    State in the Interest of Dino
  • State in Interest of Giangrosso 385 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    State in Interest of Dino
  • State v. Menne 380 So. 2d 14 La. 1980
    State in the Interest of Dino, State of Louisiana Constitutional Convention of 1973 Verbatim Transcripts, September 7, 1973, Vol.
  • State v. Harris 383 So. 2d 1 La. 1980
    Furthermore defendant argues that the confessions should have been suppressed because the state failed to adhere to standards announced in State in the Interest of Dino, concerning confessions of juveniles.
  • State ex rel. Health & Social Rehabilitation Services Administration ex rel. Howard 382 So. 2d 194 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    needs the assistance of counsel to cope with problems of law, to make skilled inquiry into the facts, to insist upon regularity of the proceedings, and to ascertain whether he has a defense and to prepare and submit it.” The Louisiana Supreme Court in State in Interest of Dino, recognized that a juvenile proceeding “.
  • State, in Interest of Howard 382 So. 2d 194 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
    The Louisiana Supreme Court in State in Interest of Dino, recognized that a juvenile proceeding ".
  • State v. Knapp 378 So. 2d 911 La. 1979
    State in the Interest of Dino
  • State, in Interest of Lewis 377 So. 2d 1322 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Lewis maintains the lack of such consultation renders his confessions inadmissible due to the ruling of the Supreme Court in State in the Interest of Dino
  • State v. Singleton 376 So. 2d 143 La. 1979
    State in the Interest of Dino
  • State v. Kent 371 So. 2d 1319 La. 1979
    State in the Interest of Dino, accord State v. Volk, supra .
  • State in Interest of Jones 372 So. 2d 779 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    In State In Interest of Dino, the Louisiana Supreme Court considered what constituted a valid waiver of juvenile constitutional rights.
  • State v. Sheppard 371 So. 2d 1135 La. 1979
    In the instant case, the defendant confessed on July 3, 1977 and was tried in March, 1978, prior to our decision in State in the Interest of Dino, (La.
  • State v. Coleman 369 So. 2d 1286 La. 1979
    we quoted from State in the Interest of Dino, language gleaned from Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 469 , 86 S.Ct.
  • State v. Collins 370 So. 2d 533 La. 1979
    1602 , 16 *539 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); State in Interest of Dino
  • State v. Volk 369 So. 2d 128 La. 1979
    State in the Interest of Dino, [3] accord, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 469 , 86 S.Ct.
  • State v. Collum 365 So. 2d 1272 La. 1979
    I. At the outset it must be determined whether this Court's decision in State in the Interest of Dino, is applicable to this prosecution.
  • State in Interest of Batiste 367 So. 2d 784 La. 1979
    1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1977); State of Louisiana in the Interest of Andrew Leonard Dino