Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Prudholm, 446 So. 2d 729.

589 citing documents.

State v. James 755 So. 2d 995 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. Rodriguez 753 So. 2d 339 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. Preston 752 So. 2d 211 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. Anderson 753 So. 2d 321 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. Davis 751 So. 2d 326 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Jenkins 750 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Green 750 So. 2d 343 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977), : (1) the witness's opportunity to view the defendant at the time the crime was committed; (2) the degree of attention paid by the witness during the commission of the crime; (3) the accuracy of any prior description; (4) the level of the witness's certainty displayed at the time of identification; and (
State v. Thomas 750 So. 2d 1114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
State v. Ball 748 So. 2d 1239 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
State v. Sartain 746 So. 2d 837 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Meyers 748 So. 2d 554 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Washington 747 So. 2d 1191 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977); (La.App.
State v. Martello 748 So. 2d 1192 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977); State v. Hankton, 96-1538 (La.App.
State v. Talley 748 So. 2d 1184 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
State v. Washington 747 So. 2d 1191 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 , 97 v. Prudholm, (La.App.
State v. Gipson 747 So. 2d 187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977), : (1) the witness’s opportunity to view the de fendant at the time the crime was committed; (2) the degree of attention paid by the witness during the commission of the crime; (3) the accuracy of any prior description; (4) the level of the witness’s certainty displayed at the time of identification; and
State v. Louis 744 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977); (La.App.
State v. Davis 745 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Broadway 753 So. 2d 801 La. 1999
State v. Cherry 752 So. 2d 894 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
State v. Cavalier, supra
State v. Dennis 753 So. 2d 296 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Thibodeaux 750 So. 2d 916 La. 1999
State v. Greenwell 746 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
State v. Patrick, 31,380 (La.App.2d Cir.10/28/98), , writ denied, 98-2957 (La.3/19/99), .
State v. Brooks 758 So. 2d 814 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Brown 744 So. 2d 93 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977); State v. Hankton, 96-1538 (La.App.
State v. Ball 733 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
State v. Bordes 738 So. 2d 143 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Cureaux 736 So. 2d 318 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Guy 737 So. 2d 231 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Nicholas 735 So. 2d 790 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Williams 738 So. 2d 598 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977); (La.App.
State v. Guillard 736 So. 2d 273 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Smith 734 So. 2d 826 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Johnson 734 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
State v. Davis 735 So. 2d 708 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Davis 732 So. 2d 79 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
State v. Richardson 729 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Nogess 729 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977), enunciated five factors that are to be considered in determining the likelihood of misidentification as a result of the identification procedure: (1) the *135 witness's opportunity to view the defendant at the time the crime was committed; (2) the degree of attention paid by the witness during the comm
State v. Sullivan 729 So. 2d 1101 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Finch 730 So. 2d 1020 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Cedrington 725 So. 2d 565 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
State v. Foret, 96-281 (La.App.
State v. Burton 727 So. 2d 518 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
State v. Anderson 728 So. 2d 14 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
State v. Hampton, 94-1943 (La.App.
State v. Martin 723 So. 2d 1021 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
State v. Burns 723 So. 2d 1013 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
State v. Patrick 721 So. 2d 94 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
State v. Clark 720 So. 2d 134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
State v. Metoyer 720 So. 2d 148 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Knapper ; (on rehearing).
State v. Coleman 720 So. 2d 381 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
ourt, on motion of the defendant, shall grant a new trial whenever: * * * * * * (3) New and material evidence that, notwithstanding the exercise of reasonable diligence by the defendant, was not discovered before or during the trial, is available, and if the evidence had been introduced at the trial it would probably have changed the verdict or judgment of guilty;" LSA-C.Cr.P.
State v. August 719 So. 2d 536 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998