Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Bell, 446 So. 2d 1191.

18 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Sharrieff M. Kent La. 2024
As such, this Court’s (La.
State v. Johnson 244 So. 3d 617 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
State v. Mansfield 190 So. 3d 322 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
State v. Harrison, 46,325 (La.App.2d Cir.5/18/11), .
State v. Lensey 182 So. 3d 1059 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
State v. Harrison, supra.
State v. Chairs 106 So. 3d 1232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
The Louisiana Supreme Court confronted a
State of Louisiana v. Triston T. Lyons La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
the Louisiana Supreme Court underscored the following footnote appearing in Doyle: It goes almost without saying that the fact of post- arrest silence could be used by the prosecution to contradict a defendant who testifies to an exculpatory
State v. Harrison 69 So. 3d 581 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. McCray 12 So. 3d 990 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
the court held that a defendant may not tell the jury that the state’s case is the result of an improper investigation without allowing the state to try to show the jury that the investigation was indeed thorough, or at least sufficiently thorough as to include inquiries of the defendant in order to get lea
State v. Bradley 997 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
the trial court found the prosecutor's reference to the defendant's post- Miranda silence was permissible to rebut the defendant's assertion that the state failed to properly investigate.
State v. Williams 902 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State of Louisiana v. Willie James Morris, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
the Louisiana Supreme Court underscored the following footnote appearing in Doyle: It goes almost without saying that the fact of post-arrest silence could be used by the prosecution to contradict a defendant who testifies to an exculpatory version of events and claims to have tol
State v. Morris 876 So. 2d 247 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
the Louisiana Supreme Court underscored the following footnote appearing in Doyle : It goes almost without saying that the fact of post-arrest silence could be used by the prosecution to contradict a defendant who testifies to an exculpatory version of events and claims to have told the police the same vers
State v. Marcotte 817 So. 2d 1245 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
State v. Ledesma 817 So. 2d 390 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
State v. Varnado 737 So. 2d 240 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. George 661 So. 2d 975 La. 1995
State v. Arvie 505 So. 2d 44 La. 1987
in which this court recognized an exception to Doyle when the evidence of post-arrest silence is relevant to rebut a defense-raised assertion that the arresting officers failed to properly investigate or that defendant actively cooperated with police when arrested.
State v. Summit 454 So. 2d 1100 La. 1984
in which the defendant answered a series of questions by the police before invoking his right to remain silent, and this court held that the officer's reference to this fact merely explained how the interrogation was concluded, rather than calling attention to the silence, in which this court recognized an exception to Doyle when the evidence of postarrest silence is relevant to rebut a defense raised assertion that the arresting officers failed to properly investigate or that defendant actively