Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Vaughn, 378 So. 2d 905.

61 citing documents.

State v. Allen 118 So. 3d 514 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
the Louisiana Supreme Court wrote: “We also note that this court has held that, in determining the correctness of a ruling on a pre-trial motion to suppress, we are not limited to the evidence presented at the hearing on that motion but may consider all pertinent evidence adduced at the trial on the me
State of Louisiana v. Cleveland Troy Bias La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Banks 800 So. 2d 28 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
portions of the testimony from the defendant’s motion to suppress the identification were not transcribed because of a malfunction in the recording equipment.
State v. Byes 735 So. 2d 758 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
portions of the testimony from the defendant's motion to suppress the identification were not transcribed because of a malfunction in the recording equipment.
State v. Smith 715 So. 2d 547 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
State v. Washington 687 So. 2d 575 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
State v. Washington 687 So. 2d 575 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
State v. Hattaway 621 So. 2d 796 La. 1993
See, State v. Thomas, supra; (La.
State, in Interest of Gm 617 So. 2d 219 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
State v. Cage 554 So. 2d 39 La. 1989
State v. Hensley 544 So. 2d 47 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Odom 529 So. 2d 154 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
State v. Brady 524 So. 2d 1356 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Allen 526 So. 2d 1198 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Moore v. Clark 517 So. 2d 293 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Banks 503 So. 2d 529 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
State v. Guillory 502 So. 2d 258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
See also, ’ ” In the case sub judice, it was error for the trial judge to admit the arrest report.
State v. Medford 489 So. 2d 957 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
State v. Miller 489 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
State v. Murray 476 So. 2d 1170 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
appeal after remand, , cert.
State v. Benoit 477 So. 2d 849 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
[emphasis added]” Hargrave, supra, has been widely cited by the circuits as the proper standard for review of denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal.
State v. Jenkins 454 So. 2d 282 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Williams 458 So. 2d 1315 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Walker 454 So. 2d 1256 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Jenkins 456 So. 2d 174 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Bosley 454 So. 2d 1245 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Kikendall v. American Progressive Ins. Co. 457 So. 2d 53 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Swift 449 So. 2d 654 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Vessell 450 So. 2d 938 La. 1984
State v. Kennedy 444 So. 2d 301 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Doucet 443 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Roberson 445 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
State v. Hunter 441 So. 2d 434 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
State v. Burns 441 So. 2d 1294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Johnson 440 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
State v. Collier 438 So. 2d 652 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
State v. Clark 437 So. 2d 879 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
1877 , 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972)
State v. Boyette 434 So. 2d 456 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
State v. Hill 431 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
State v. Parish 429 So. 2d 442 La. 1983
State v. Moore 432 So. 2d 209 La. 1983
2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977)
State v. Ruple 426 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Ray 423 So. 2d 1116 La. 1982
State v. Duncan 420 So. 2d 1105 La. 1982
State v. Jones 412 So. 2d 1051 La. 1982
State v. Lewis 412 So. 2d 1353 La. 1982
State v. Phillips 412 So. 2d 1036 La. 1982
State v. Sims 410 So. 2d 1082 La. 1982
State v. Johnson 411 So. 2d 439 La. 1982
State v. Hargrave 411 So. 2d 1058 La. 1982