DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Dauzat, 364 So. 2d 1000.

26 citing documents.

  • Explained State v. Kisack 190 So. 3d 806 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    at 3200 ; also see State v. Draughter, 13-0914, pp. 14-15 (La.12/10/13), -67
  • State v. Stovall 977 So. 2d 1074 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    See also, This Court has also approved one-on-one show up identifications where the identifications have been found to be reliable and the procedure did not create a substantial likelihood that the suspect would be misidentified.
  • State v. Tilmon 870 So. 2d 607 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
    State v. Patrick, 31,380 (La.App.2d Cir.10/28/98), 721 * writ denied, 98-2957 (La.03/19/99), ; (La.App.
  • State v. Harold 861 So. 2d 262 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    See also, This Court has also approved one-on-one show up identifications where the identifications have been found to be reliable and the procedure did not create a substantial likelihood that the suspect would be misidentified.
  • State v. Sewell 811 So. 2d 140 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    State v. Patrick, 31,380 (La.App.2d Cir.10/28/98), , writ denied, 98-2957 (La.3/19/99), ; (La.App.
  • State v. Barber 749 So. 2d 917 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    State v. Patrick, 31,380 (La.App.2d Cir.10/28/98), , writ denied, 98-2957 (La.3/19/99), ; (La.App.
  • State v. Ball 748 So. 2d 1239 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    State v. Patrick, 31,380 (La.App.2d Cir.10/28/98), , writ denied, 98-2957 (La.3/19/99), ; (La.App.
  • State v. Greenwell 746 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    State v. Patrick, supra; (La.App.
  • State v. Patrick 721 So. 2d 94 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
  • State v. Hunter 654 So. 2d 781 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
  • State v. McGraw 564 So. 2d 727 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
  • State v. Williams 536 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
    the court wrote: Where, as in the instant case, a one-on-one in-field identification is closely associated in time with the commission of the crime and where the suspect is returned to the location of the crime of immediate identification, such identifications have been found permissible.
  • State v. Holmes 516 So. 2d 184 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
    The Court, stated that one reason for declining to disapprove such procedures is that they promote fairness by assuring reliability and the prompt release of innocent suspects.
  • State v. Cotton 511 So. 2d 1207 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Guirlando 509 So. 2d 172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    See also Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 , 99 S.Ct.
  • State v. Colvin 494 So. 2d 1357 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    Passman v. Blackburn, 652 F.2d 559 (5th Cir.1981); State v. Clark, supra; State v. Evans, supra.
  • State v. Williams 490 So. 2d 255 La. 1986
  • State v. Evans 485 So. 2d 161 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    Passman v. Blackburn, 652 F.2d 559 (5th Cir., 1981); : State v. Clark, supra.
  • State v. Picot 482 So. 2d 771 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
    2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977), and in other cases, we find that the identification method was not impermissibly suggestive and that the procedure did not give rise to a substantial likelihood of misidentification.
  • State v. Watson 477 So. 2d 788 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
    for these principles: "Where, as in the instant case, a one-on-one in-field identification is closely associated in time with the commission of *791 the crime and where the suspect is returned to the location of the crime for immediate identification, such identifications have been found permissible.
  • State v. Signal 467 So. 2d 1375 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Robinson 404 So. 2d 907 La. 1981
    Under similar circumstances, this court considered the identification procedure constitutionally acceptable, and stated: "Where, as in the instant case, a one-on-one in-field identification is closely associated in time with the commission of the crime and where the suspect is returned to the location of the crime for immediate i
  • State v. McPhate 393 So. 2d 718 La. 1981
    See also Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 , 99 S.Ct.
  • State v. Stewart 387 So. 2d 1103 La. 1980
  • State v. Patrick 381 So. 2d 501 La. 1980
    See also Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 , 60 L.Ed.2d 447 , 99 S.Ct.
  • State v. Carthan 377 So. 2d 308 La. 1979
    1218 , 8 L.Ed.2d 384 (1962)