DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Bouffanie, 364 So. 2d 971.

23 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Aaron W. Ardoin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
  • State v. Ardoin 58 So. 3d 1025 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • State v. Ned 525 So. 2d 9 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    involved a defendant who similarly claimed that his confession was made while he was having symptoms of drug withdrawals and that the police refused him medical assistance until he would make a statement.
  • State v. Hanson 460 So. 2d 1090 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
    defendant was suffering from heroin withdrawal when he was arrested one morning.
  • State v. Jones 451 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • State v. David 425 So. 2d 1241 La. 1983
  • State v. Loyd 425 So. 2d 710 La. 1982
    State v. Rodrigue, supra , (La.
  • State v. Quimby 419 So. 2d 951 La. 1982
    Additionally, we note that defense counsel argues that had he proved Staggs' confession was illegally induced or obtained
  • State v. Edwards 419 So. 2d 881 La. 1982
    : "Before a confession or inculpatory statement can be introduced in evidence the State must prove affirmatively and beyond a reasonable doubt that it was free and voluntary and not made under the influence of fear, duress, intimidation, menaces, threats, inducements or promises...."
  • State v. Rodrigue 409 So. 2d 556 La. 1982
  • State v. Willie 410 So. 2d 1019 La. 1982
  • State v. Smith 396 So. 2d 879 La. 1981
    we applied the procedure and burden of proof governing challenges to the truthfulness of factual statements in a search warrant affidavit, see Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 , 98 S.Ct.
  • State v. Haynie 395 So. 2d 669 La. 1981
    However, at 973 (La.1978), due to the state's burden of proving voluntariness, it must: "rebut specific testimony introduced by the defendant concerning factual circumstances which indicate coercive measures or intimidation.
  • State v. Brown 395 So. 2d 1301 La. 1981
  • State v. Smith 392 So. 2d 454 La. 1980
  • State v. Ogden 391 So. 2d 434 La. 1980
    Franks v. Delaware, supra; (La.
  • State v. Thucos 390 So. 2d 1281 La. 1980
    2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); , (La.1978).
  • State v. Williams 385 So. 2d 214 La. 1980
    this court considered the question of whether one against whom evidence was acquired by the use of involuntary statements of a third person has standing under our Constitution to challenge the admission of the evidence on the ground of the violation of the third person's rights.
  • State v. Napier 385 So. 2d 776 La. 1980
  • State v. Franklin 381 So. 2d 826 La. 1980
    this Court has repeatedly held that "[b]efore a confession or inculpatory statement can be introduced in evidence the State must prove affirmatively and beyond a reasonable doubt that it was free and voluntary and not made under the influence of fear, duress, intimidation, menaces, threats, inducements
  • State v. Pomes 376 So. 2d 133 La. 1979
  • State v. Singleton 376 So. 2d 143 La. 1979
    It is difficult to understand how the majority can ignore the problem, particularly since we recently discussed the question at some length, and the issue was called to our attention again by the briefs in this case.
  • State v. Stevenson 374 So. 2d 1189 La. 1979
    ( 305 So.2d at 912 ) See, also, (1978); (La.