Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Robinson, 386 So. 2d 1374.

100 citing documents.

State v. Simmons 779 So. 2d 856 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. Bright 776 So. 2d 1134 La. 2000
State v. Rodriguez 753 So. 2d 339 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. Broadway 753 So. 2d 801 La. 1999
State v. Thibodeaux 750 So. 2d 916 La. 1999
State v. Fugler 721 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
(trial court denial of motion to suppress photo line-up affirmed where defendant unable to prove that witness' attention was focused on defendant's photo).
State v. Davis 672 So. 2d 428 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
App. 2d Cir.1991), writ denied, (1992)
State v. Guy 669 So. 2d 517 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
State v. Alonzo 661 So. 2d 1043 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
State v. Wilson 632 So. 2d 861 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
State v. Williams 594 So. 2d 476 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
State v. Tucker 591 So. 2d 1208 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
State v. Hawkins 572 So. 2d 108 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Collins 546 So. 2d 1246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Hallal 544 So. 2d 1222 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
(yellow tint on defendant's photo not suggestive); (La.App.
State v. Hodges 526 So. 2d 406 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
Neslo, supra at 78 ; (La.
State v. Burge 498 So. 2d 196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Robins 499 So. 2d 94 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Scott 490 So. 2d 396 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
where it was unsuccessfully urged that the lineup was suggestive because the defendant's photo was older than the others and had a yellow tint.
State v. Brown 481 So. 2d 679 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. O'NEAL 478 So. 2d 1311 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
the court held that the fact the defendant's photograph was "yellowed" did not make the lineup suggestive.
State v. Sepcich 473 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State v. Green 471 So. 2d 1049 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Coleman 470 So. 2d 590 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Burks 466 So. 2d 681 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State v. Murphy 465 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Williams 458 So. 2d 1315 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Jones 457 So. 2d 110 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Tate 454 So. 2d 391 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Garlepied 454 So. 2d 1147 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Jackson 452 So. 2d 776 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Sagona 451 So. 2d 1171 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Weeks 449 So. 2d 1158 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Bearden 449 So. 2d 1109 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
State v. Dryer 449 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Foret 447 So. 2d 1265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Nathan 444 So. 2d 231 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Roberson 445 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
State v. Ventry 439 So. 2d 1144 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
State v. Neslo 433 So. 2d 73 La. 1983
State v. Patterson 432 So. 2d 1021 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. David 425 So. 2d 1241 La. 1983
State v. Ludwig 423 So. 2d 1073 La. 1982
State v. Yarbrough 418 So. 2d 503 La. 1982
State v. Tuckson 414 So. 2d 360 La. 1982
Nevertheless, that whether a consent to search was voluntary is a question of fact to be determined by an analysis of all the circumstances of each case.
State v. Wright 410 So. 2d 1092 La. 1982
State v. Middlebrook 409 So. 2d 588 La. 1982
Defendant asserts that he should not be required to show systematic exclusion of blacks over a period of time and that the mere fact that five of the six peremptory challenges used by the state were used to exclude blacks is sufficient, (La.
State v. Davis 407 So. 2d 702 La. 1981
State v. Nicholas 397 So. 2d 1308 La. 1981
With regard to the question of suggestiveness, held that: "A line-up is unduly suggestive if the identification procedure displays the defendant so that the witness' attention is focused on the defendant.
State v. Roberds 393 So. 2d 715 La. 1981