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. Westbrook, 392 So. 2d 1043.

42 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Dashone Gibson La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2025
  • State of Louisiana Versus Landon P Rogers La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
  • State v. Green 245 So. 3d 1105 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
    State v. Westbrook , (La.
  • State v. Hickman 207 So. 3d 500 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
  • State v. Dahlem 148 So. 3d 591 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    (on rehearing); (La.App.
  • State v. Hackett 122 So. 3d 1164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State v. Galle 107 So. 3d 916 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    where it had held in a second offense driving while intoxicated case that a driver’s license number, sex, race, and birth date all identified the prior offender as the defendant, and thus that the State proved the defendant’s identity as the same person previously convicted.
  • State v. Lewis 75 So. 3d 484 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • State v. Brown 71 So. 3d 1069 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • State v. Vincent 56 So. 3d 408 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • State v. Fortune 54 So. 3d 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    (1980) (in addition to defendant’s name, other evidence such as driver’s license number, sex, race, and date of birth should be introduced to sustain State’s burden of proving that defendant is same person previously convicted of another felony); see also State v. Cosey, 2004-2220 (La.App.
  • State v. Murphy 34 So. 3d 886 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    which involved a conviction for driving while intoxicated (D.W.I.), the Louisiana Supreme Court found that documentation of the defendant’s name, driver’s license number, sex, race, and date of birth was sufficient evidence for the State to carry its burden of proving that this defendant was the same
  • State of Louisiana v. Broadus Darneal Davis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    See, e.g., State v. Westbrook, [ ]
  • State v. Davis 19 So. 3d 582 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    See, e.g., State v. Westbrook, [ ]
  • State v. Senegal 972 So. 2d 494 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
  • State of Louisiana v. Desmond Joseph Senegal La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
  • State v. Robertson 925 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    where it had held in a second offense driving while intoxicated case that a driver’s license number, sex, race, and birth date all identified the prior offender as the defendant, and thus that the State proved the defendant’s identity as the same person previously convicted.
  • State v. Watson 911 So. 2d 396 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    State v. Hight, 35,621 (La.App.
  • State v. Cosey 913 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
    where it had held in a second offense driving while intoxicated case that a driver's license number, sex, race, and birth date all identified the prior offender as the defendant, and thus that the State proved the defendant's identity as the same person previously convicted.
  • State v. Washington 895 So. 2d 691 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    State v. Payton, 00-2899 (La.3/15/02)
  • State of Louisiana v. Carey Louis Hood La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    See, e.g., State v. Westbrook, []
  • State v. Hood 895 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    See, e.g., State v. Westbrook, [ ]
  • State v. Blackson 865 So. 2d 272 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
    State v. Gillam, 03-0369 (La.App.
  • State v. Gillam 850 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
  • State v. Payton 810 So. 2d 1127 La. 2002
    Furthermore, a case where defendant was convicted of a second offense of driving while intoxicated, defendant complained of an insufficient connexity to prove he was actually the prior offender.
  • State v. Hight 810 So. 2d 1250 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
  • State v. Robinson 780 So. 2d 1213 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    State v. Jackson, 31,433 (La.App.2d Cir.01/20/99), , writ denied, 99-2250 (La.12/17/99), .
  • State v. Powell 779 So. 2d 67 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
  • State v. Green 779 So. 2d 835 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
  • State v. Lindsey 770 So. 2d 339 La. 2000
    State v. Lee, 97-1035 (La.App.
  • State v. Everett 770 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
  • State v. Hayden 767 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
  • State v. Lee 764 So. 2d 1122 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
  • State v. Anderson 753 So. 2d 321 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
  • State v. Jackson 726 So. 2d 1061 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • State v. Inzina 728 So. 2d 458 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
  • State v. Henry 709 So. 2d 322 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
  • State v. Pitre 532 So. 2d 424 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Pitre 532 So. 2d 422 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Savoy 487 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
  • State v. Edens 465 So. 2d 954 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • State v. Krause 405 So. 2d 832 La. 1981
    Even so, decided under the 1977 regulations, we expressly qualified our holding that the manufacturer's certificate was prima facie evidence of reliability with the observation that the manufacturer's certificate was less than four months old.