DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Martin, 595 So. 2d 592.

93 citing documents.

  • State v. Stokes 828 So. 2d 631 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
  • State v. Lee 807 So. 2d 359 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
  • State v. Goldston 804 So. 2d 141 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    State v. Harper, supra ; *155 State v. Harris, 28,517 (La.App.2d Cir.8/21/96), , writ denied, 96-2954 (La.9/26/97), ; (La.App.
  • State v. Higgins 800 So. 2d 918 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
    Manson v. Brathwaite, supra ; State v. Winfrey, 97-427 (La.App.
  • State v. Williams 786 So. 2d 203 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
  • State v. Furgerson 781 So. 2d 1268 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    State v. Davis, 27,961 (La.App.2d Cir.4/08/96), .
  • State v. Payne 777 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    Manson v. Brathwaite, supra ; State v. Winfrey, 97-427 (La.App.
  • State v. Bright 776 So. 2d 1134 La. 2000
    2243, 2254 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977)
  • State v. Pratt 754 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
  • State v. Barber 749 So. 2d 917 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • State v. Pugh 750 So. 2d 313 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    Manson v. Brathwaite, supra ; State v. Winfrey, 97-427 (La.App.
  • State v. Ball 748 So. 2d 1239 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    holding that when reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, a reviewing court will consider the entire record, including the testimony presented at trial.
  • State v. Williams 747 So. 2d 1256 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • State v. Atkins 746 So. 2d 220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
  • State v. Donald 745 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • State v. Sims 745 So. 2d 151 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • State v. Howard 746 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    State v. Harris, 28,517 (La.
  • State v. Biglane 738 So. 2d 630 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
  • State v. Patrick 721 So. 2d 94 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    holding that when reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, a reviewing court will consider the entire record, including the testimony presented at trial.
  • State v. Wafer 719 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977)
  • State v. Calloway 718 So. 2d 559 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    Manson v. Brathwaite, supra; State v. Winfrey, 97-427 (La.App.
  • State v. Tolbert 716 So. 2d 949 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    State v. Davis, 27,961 (La.App.
  • State v. Perkins 716 So. 2d 120 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
  • State v. Hubbard 708 So. 2d 1099 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    See also, State v. Jackson, supra .
  • State v. Hogan 703 So. 2d 1353 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
  • State v. Jackson 694 So. 2d 440 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
    See also, State v. Williams, supra.
  • State v. Meyers 683 So. 2d 1378 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
  • State v. Cheathon 682 So. 2d 823 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    State v. Harris, 28,517 (La.App.
  • State v. Harris 679 So. 2d 549 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
  • State v. Davis 672 So. 2d 428 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
  • State v. Washington 670 So. 2d 1255 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
  • State v. Washington 670 So. 2d 1255 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
  • State v. Thompson 665 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
  • State v. Jones 658 So. 2d 307 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    Having determined that the procedure was suggestive, we apply the Manson analysis, to the facts of this case to determine whether Stevenson's ability to make accurate identifications outweighed the corrupting effect of the challenged identification procedure: 1.
  • State v. Rosette 653 So. 2d 80 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
  • State v. Neoland 652 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    the procedure employed was both suggestive, because only one photograph was used, and unnecessary, because there was no emergency nor exigent circumstance involved.
  • State v. Harper 646 So. 2d 338 La. 1994
    2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977)
  • State v. Davis 637 So. 2d 1012 La. 1994
    375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 *1023 (1972)
  • State v. Duncan 635 So. 2d 653 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
  • State v. Harper 625 So. 2d 534 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    In these assignments the defendant contends that the single photographic identification should have been suppressed, and that the evidence was insufficient under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 807 , 99 S.Ct.
  • State v. Dyer 621 So. 2d 51 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    State v. Tucker, supra .
  • State v. Johnson 619 So. 2d 1102 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
  • State v. Williams 613 So. 2d 252 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992