DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Mosley, 390 So. 2d 1302.

27 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Harrison Buckner Doyle La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
    In that case, the Louisiana Supreme Court concluded that references during trial to 3 State v. George, 95-110 (La.
  • State v. Duong 148 So. 3d 623 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 , 96 S.Ct.
  • State v. Adams 142 So. 3d 265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 , 96 S.Ct.
  • State of Louisiana v. Triston T. Lyons La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • State v. Jones 891 So. 2d 760 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
    The court stated: Although this case, unlike State v. Mosley [ ], involves an explicit mention of the defendant's post-arrest silence, Doyle [ v. State of Ohio , 426 U.S. 610 , 96 S.Ct.
  • State v. Iverson 855 So. 2d 835 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    does not support defendant's position.
  • State v. Price 842 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    The court stated: Although this case, unlike State v. Mosley [ ], involves an explicit mention of the defendant's post-arrest silence, Doyle [ 426 U.S. 610 , 96 S.Ct.
  • State v. Ledesma 817 So. 2d 390 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
  • State v. Washington 788 So. 2d 596 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
  • State v. Washington 788 So. 2d 596 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    the prosecutor asked two police officers testifying for the state if the defendant had been advised of his constitutional rights at the time of his arrest.
  • State v. Varnado 737 So. 2d 240 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 , 96 S.Ct.
  • State v. George 661 So. 2d 975 La. 1995
    Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 , 96 S.Ct.
  • State v. Jones 648 So. 2d 472 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    First, the examination did not stress or emphasize defendant's right to remain silent; and, second, there is some question that this short colloquy at the very beginning of the trial left such an impression on the jurors that it had any effect on their deliberations.
  • State v. Troulliet 643 So. 2d 1267 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
  • State v. Simms 571 So. 2d 145 La. 1990
  • State v. Carroll 546 So. 2d 1365 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
    First, the examination did not stress or emphasize defendant's right to remain silent; and, second, there is some question that this short colloquy at the very beginning of the trial left such an impression on the jurors that it had any effect on their deliberations.
  • State v. Hall 519 So. 2d 274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    Similar to the court’s we do not approve of the prosecutor’s behavior in questioning the police officer in such a manner as to allow defendant’s post-arrest silence to come to the attention of the jury.
  • State v. Arvie 505 So. 2d 44 La. 1987
    at 1305 (La., 1980), where the reference to defendant's silence was "oblique and obscure."
  • State v. Carmouche 499 So. 2d 1227 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    First, the examination did not stress or emphasize defendant's right to remain silent; and, second, there is some question that this short colloquy at the very beginning of the trial left such an impression on the jurors that it had any effect on their deliberations.
  • State v. Lingle 436 So. 2d 456 La. 1983
  • State v. Johnson 422 So. 2d 1125 La. 1982
  • State v. Sam 412 So. 2d 1082 La. 1982
    In a later case, -06 (La.1980), the court addressed this question again.
  • State v. Tokman 412 So. 2d 561 La. 1982
  • State v. Middlebrook 409 So. 2d 588 La. 1982
    to disagree with the conduct of the prosecuting attorney in asking whether defendant was informed of his rights when no statement by defendant was going to be offered.
  • State v. Mattheson 407 So. 2d 1150 La. 1981
    However, we found that an oblique and obscure reference to a defendant's post-arrest silence did not amount to reversible error as the defendant did not suffer any prejudice as a result thereof.
  • State v. Bell 395 So. 2d 805 La. 1981
  • State v. Brown 395 So. 2d 1301 La. 1981
    Recently, considered the introduction of testimony regarding a defendant's notification of his rights at the time of his arrest where the state was not introducing such testimony as a predicate for the admission of a confession or inculpatory statement.