Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Davis, 409 So. 2d 268.

29 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Orlando Demond Morris Charles La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
The Louisiana Supreme Court, discussing Manson v. Braithwaite, supra, stated: “ .
State v. James 592 So. 2d 867 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
State v. Brown 588 So. 2d 1317 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
which sets out guidelines to exclude an out-of-court identification on a motion to suppress.
State v. Thomas 589 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
State v. McGraw 564 So. 2d 727 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
State v. Amos 550 So. 2d 272 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
wherein it provided five factors to be considered in determining the admissibility of such testimony: "The factors to be considered include the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness's degree of attention, the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal
State v. Jackson 527 So. 2d 1039 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
State v. Gilbert 520 So. 2d 1184 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
State v. Cotton 511 So. 2d 1207 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State v. Cortez 503 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
State v. Colvin 494 So. 2d 1357 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Passman v. Blackburn, 652 F.2d 559 (5th Cir.1981); State v. Clark, supra; State v. Evans, supra.
State v. Medford 489 So. 2d 957 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
State v. Evans 485 So. 2d 161 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Passman v. Blackburn, 652 F.2d 559 (5th Cir., 1981); : State v. Clark, supra.
State v. Watson 477 So. 2d 788 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S.Ct.
State v. Knox 472 So. 2d 170 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
"[i]n the final analysis, it must be determined [as a matter of due process] whether under all the circumstances of a particular case there is a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification."
State v. Austin 470 So. 2d 406 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
The Louisiana Supreme Court, discussing Manson v. Braithwaite, supra, stated: "...
State v. Brown 470 So. 2d 259 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State v. Jones 467 So. 2d 147 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
The Louisiana Supreme Court adopted a
State v. James 464 So. 2d 299 La. 1985
State v. McKinney 455 So. 2d 1235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Crawford 454 So. 2d 868 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Manson v. Brathwaite, supra; State v. Prudholm, supra
State v. Jackson 454 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Davis 449 So. 2d 466 La. 1984
the out-of-court identifications of Davis by Crouchet and Julie Baye in a one-on-one confrontation at the police station were suppressed because of the "substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentifications."
State v. Senior 446 So. 2d 453 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
discussing Manson v. Brathwaite, 482 U.S. 98 , 97 S.Ct.
State v. Crawford 441 So. 2d 813 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
wherein it was stated: "The factors to be considered include the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty displayed
State v. Neslo 433 So. 2d 73 La. 1983
State v. Marchese 430 So. 2d 1303 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
involving a one-on-one identification which was subsequently suppressed, the court cited Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S.Ct.
State v. Williams 420 So. 2d 1116 La. 1982
State v. Smith 418 So. 2d 515 La. 1982