Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Vernon, 385 So. 2d 200.

46 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Lamondre Tucker 181 So. 3d 590 La. 2015
State v. Wright 978 So. 2d 1062 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
State v. Jackson, 523 * (La.App.
State v. Demming 911 So. 2d 894 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
Accord, (where the officer told the defendant that in the past, anybody that tried to help themselves, usually got help); and State v. Vernon, *898 (where the court held that "the mere fact that one officer told Vernon that the district attorney would be advised of any cooperation was not sufficient inducement.") Regarding such comments, observed: Statements of this type, rather th
State v. Holloway 847 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
State v. Roddy 756 So. 2d 1272 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
State v. Gaspard 709 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
State v. Gaspard 685 So. 2d 151 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
State v. Johnson 664 So. 2d 94 La. 1995
State v. Matthews 649 So. 2d 1022 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
State v. Johnson 631 So. 2d 658 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
State v. Lions 624 So. 2d 436 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
State v. Leonard 605 So. 2d 697 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
State v. Tucker 602 So. 2d 59 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
205 , 98 L.Ed.2d 156 (1987) (which involved a reference made by a state witness during defendant’s trial on five counts of first degree murder, to the theft of a radio, which reference the Supreme Court found paled in significance to the five counts of first degree murder and did not portray the defendant as a “bad man” capable of murder); See also, cert.
State v. Toomer 572 So. 2d 1152 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Furthermore, that the mere fact that one officer had told the defendant that the district attorney would be advised of any cooperation cannot be considered sufficient inducement to vitiate the free and voluntary nature of the confession.
State v. Jackson 523 So. 2d 251 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
State v. Scott 503 So. 2d 1173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Landry 502 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
State v. Sorina 499 So. 2d 376 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
State v. King 478 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Luwisch 468 So. 2d 741 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
The Supreme Court, in affirming a allowed the prosecutor to introduce evidence that the defendant had previously been arrested for carrying a concealed weapon.
State v. Sterling 453 So. 2d 625 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Babineaux 449 So. 2d 1387 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
the Louisiana Supreme Court resolved this issue where the testimonial situation was identical to the present case.
State v. Shepherd 449 So. 2d 1120 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
State v. Mathieu 449 So. 2d 1087 La. 1984
State v. Faulkner 447 So. 2d 1139 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Foster 437 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
(photos relevant to corroborate other evidence).
State v. Burdgess 434 So. 2d 1062 La. 1983
State v. Hernandez 432 So. 2d 350 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Montgomery 432 So. 2d 340 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Robinson, supra .
State v. Odds 430 So. 2d 1269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Defendant relies on three cases in which the Louisiana Supreme Court addressed the question of inducements or *1272 promises alleged to have been made by police officers to obtain a confession:
State v. Tonubbee 420 So. 2d 126 La. 1982
State v. Stucke 419 So. 2d 939 La. 1982
State v. Jackson 414 So. 2d 310 La. 1982
State v. Petterway, [1] supra
State v. Moore 414 So. 2d 340 La. 1982
State v. Humphrey 412 So. 2d 507 La. 1982
State v. Crawford 410 So. 2d 1076 La. 1982
State v. Goza 408 So. 2d 1349 La. 1982
[1] , appeal after remand
State v. Davis 407 So. 2d 666 La. 1981
State v. Lindsey 404 So. 2d 466 La. 1981
on original hearing (La.1979)
State v. Scott 400 So. 2d 627 La. 1981
State v. Tauzier 397 So. 2d 494 La. 1981
Pugh, Louisiana Evidence Law 30 (1974).
State v. Dison 396 So. 2d 1254 La. 1981
The sheriff's statements to defendant that he could promise him nothing, and that the "court system" was the ultimate arbiter of his case, in which the defendant was merely told that his cooperation would be brought to the attention of the district attorney.
State v. Bodley 394 So. 2d 584 La. 1981
this Court stated: "The test of admissibility of allegedly gruesome photographs is whether their probative value outweighs the possible prejudice that may result from their display to the jury.
State v. Anderson 390 So. 2d 878 La. 1980
State v. Deville 391 So. 2d 1145 La. 1980
State v. Hartman 388 So. 2d 688 La. 1980