Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Anderson, 379 So. 2d 735.

25 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Dewayne Willie Watkins La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
2d 485, and anyone with an IQ between 50 and 69 cannot waive Miranda, (La.
State of Louisiana Versus Teddy Chester La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2021
1981) (19-year-old with IQ of 68 who did not know his own age intelligently waived his rights, which were explained in simplistic terms); (La.
State v. Chester 208 So. 3d 338 La. 2016
1981) (19-year-old with IQ of 68 who did not know his own age intelligently waived his rights, which were explained in simplistic terms); (La.
State v. Lundy 195 So. 3d 587 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
rights, which were explained in simplistic terms that he apparently understood); (La,1982) (‘"[M]oderate mental retardation and low intelligence or illiteracy do not of themselves vitiate the ability to knowingly and intelligently wáive 'constitutional rights and make a free and voluntary confession,.’ ”) (citations omitted); (La.
State of Louisiana v. Lamondre Tucker 181 So. 3d 590 La. 2015
1982) (“„[M]oderate mental retardation and low intelligence or illiteracy do not of themselves vitiate the ability to knowingly and intelligently waive constitutional rights and make a free and voluntary confession.‟”) (citations omitted); (La.
State v. Grady 108 So. 3d 845 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
Floyd v. Cain 62 So. 3d 57 La. 2011
State v. James 897 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
Likewise, the Court ruled the State failed to prove the defendant knowingly waived his rights.
State v. Manning 885 So. 2d 1044 La. 2004
Cf., (fact that the defendant was an illiterate, unemployed 17-year-old with the mental age of 8 and an IQ of between 50 and 69, coupled with ambivalent police testimony about whether he ever understood the rights they attempted to explain to him, supported a conclusion he was incapable of understanding his
State v. Raiford 846 So. 2d 913 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
the defendant was seventeen years old when apprehended in the course of a burglary.
State v. Lavalais 685 So. 2d 1048 La. 1996
State v. Green 634 So. 2d 503 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
State v. Brooks 541 So. 2d 801 La. 1989
: "The critical factor in all such cases is whether or not the defendant was able to understand the rights being explained to him."
State v. Comeaux 514 So. 2d 84 La. 1987
State v. Roy 502 So. 2d 265 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
State v. Chevalier 458 So. 2d 507 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Brown 445 So. 2d 456 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
State v. Young 443 So. 2d 608 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Benoit 440 So. 2d 129 La. 1983
State v. Lindsey, supra; State v. Edwards, 257 La.
State v. Brogdon 426 So. 2d 158 La. 1983
State v. Brown 414 So. 2d 689 La. 1982
State v. Lewis 412 So. 2d 1353 La. 1982
State v. Penns 407 So. 2d 678 La. 1981
State v. Istre 407 So. 2d 1183 La. 1981
State v. Lindsey 404 So. 2d 466 La. 1981
State v. Edwards, 257 La.