Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Loyd, 425 So. 2d 710.

58 citing documents.

State v. Wilson 208 So. 3d 999 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
1984), (discussing Michigan v. Mosley); (La.
State of Louisiana v. Eldridge Tezano, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Weathersby, 09-2407, p. 2 (La.3/12/10), -19 (La.1982)
State of Louisiana v. Triston T. Lyons La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Floyd v. Cain 62 So. 3d 57 La. 2011
321 , 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975); (La.
State v. Harper 53 So. 3d 1263 La. 2010
State v. Weathersby, 09-2407, p. 2 (La.3/12/10), ; *1271 -19 (La.
State v. Reynolds 55 So. 3d 136 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
321 , 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975)
State v. Blank 955 So. 2d 90 La. 2007
1984), (discussing Michigan v. Mosley ); (La.
State v. Saltzman 843 So. 2d 1206 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
This is especially required after comparing their instant situation to the more compelling facts in [State v.] Loyd, [ ], in which this Court refused to exclude the statements given by the defendant to his mother.
State v. Carter 767 So. 2d 839 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
(pre-trial rulings, Loyd I ), conviction affirmed, sentence vacated, case remanded, State v. Loyd (Loyd II ), -506 (La.1984) (quoting Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 , 101 S.Ct.
State v. Lee 767 So. 2d 97 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
(holding that "a defendant is not usually entitled to the names of state witnesses”) (holding that art. 723 does not expressly prohibit such disclosure).
State v. Veillon 737 So. 2d 51 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
State v. Taylor 709 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
1st Cir.1991), writ denied
State v. McCorkle 708 So. 2d 1212 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
321 , 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975)
State v. Hattaway 674 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
477, 487 (1985); State v. Perry, supra; (1982).
State v. Campbell 673 So. 2d 1061 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
In that regard, explained as follows: [The United States Supreme Court] concluded that the admissibility of statements obtained after the person in custody has decided to remain silent depends on whether his "right to cut off questioning" was "scrupulously honored."
State v. Johnson 664 So. 2d 141 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
State v. Hamilton 648 So. 2d 939 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
321 at 326 , 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975)
State v. Grubbs 644 So. 2d 1105 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
State v. Carr 635 So. 2d 1334 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
4th Cir.1989); We find that Celius has not shown that the identification procedure was suggestive.
State v. Robinson 628 So. 2d 1342 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
State v. Dyer 621 So. 2d 51 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
State v. Braswell 605 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
State v. Trosclair, supra; State v. Zeno, supra.
State v. Valentine 570 So. 2d 533 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
the mother of the kidnapped and murdered victim was asked to come to police headquarters to view the defendant to see if he resembled the assailant.
State v. Dietrich 567 So. 2d 623 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Robertson 557 So. 2d 315 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
State v. Peters 553 So. 2d 1026 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
State v. White 544 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
321 , 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975)
State v. Carr 530 So. 2d 579 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Brown 519 So. 2d 826 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Fleury 519 So. 2d 206 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) he argues that his right to remain silent was thereby abridged.
State v. Martin 520 So. 2d 1079 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
State v. Charles 511 So. 2d 1164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Bracken 506 So. 2d 807 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Scott 503 So. 2d 1173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Perry 502 So. 2d 543 La. 1986
This Court has previously considered a
State v. Kent 489 So. 2d 1354 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Evans 485 So. 2d 161 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
321 , 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975)
State v. Cushman 481 So. 2d 1376 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
State v. Jackson 480 So. 2d 937 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Austin 470 So. 2d 406 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
*409 However, the Supreme Court found that an identification which occurred in the Terrebonne Parish Sheriff's office was reliable and properly admissible where there was no indication of police suggestions as to identification and the witness made an immediate positive identification.
State v. Nance 469 So. 2d 1045 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Jones 467 So. 2d 147 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
This assignment is without merit for at least three reasons: first, the defendant did not request that information from the state in his motion for bill of particulars; second, even had he requested the names of the state’s witnesses, he would not have been entitled to them, and third, the state’s bill of particulars, by clear implication actually supplied that information, stating that its case relied in great part on the victim’s testimony.
State v. Crescioni 468 So. 2d 588 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Loyd 459 So. 2d 498 La. 1984
State v. Richardson 459 So. 2d 31 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Wall 457 So. 2d 1225 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Gabriel 450 So. 2d 611 La. 1984
at 713 (La.1982); Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S.Ct.
State v. Ohrberg 448 So. 2d 1316 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Heath 447 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Guidry 449 So. 2d 41 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984