Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Brooks, 648 So. 2d 366.

55 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Lonnie B. Kirklin, Jr. A/K/A Lonnie Bernard Kirklin, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
State v. Green, 94-0887, p. 11 (La.5/22/95), State v. Brooks, 92-3331, p. 10, (La.1/17/95)
State Of Louisiana v. Ronald St. Cyre La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
State v. Chester 208 So. 3d 338 La. 2016
State v. Little 174 So. 3d 1219 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
State v. Brooks, 92-3331 (La.01/17/95), ; State v. Monroe, 49,365 (La.App.2d Cir.11/19/14), .
State v. Glenn 162 So. 3d 525 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
State v. Brooks, 92-3331 (La.01/17/95), ; State v. Fisher, supra.
State v. Milton 142 So. 3d 157 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2014
accuracy of the defendant’s confession was not the object of the court’s inquiry, the court reasoned that where a defendant claims his mental processes are so dysfunctional as to preclude a full understanding of his rights, “any facts which shed light upon the functioning of that defendant’s mental processes are relevant and pertinent evidence.” Id.; accord State v. Brooks, 92-3331 (La.1/17/95); (finding extrinsic corroboration is “an additional factor ...
State v. Parker 124 So. 3d 516 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Brooks, 92-3331 (La.1/17/95), ; 3 State v. Young, 39,546 (La.App.2d Cir.3/2/05), .
State of Louisiana v. Easton Joseph Francisco La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Brooks, 93–3331, pp. 11–17(La.1/17/95), –75
State v. Francisco 101 So. 3d 617 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Brooks, 93-3331, pp. 11-17 (La.1/17/95), -75
State of Louisiana v. Paul David Heider La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Heider 101 So. 3d 1025 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
See, e.g., State v. Brooks, 92-3331 (La.1/17/95)
State of Louisiana v. Ordesto Marando Toussaint La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
1/17/95), n. 2 (La.1979) (listing cases ).
State v. Toussaint 94 So. 3d 62 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
P. 10 (La.1/17/95), , , 1223 n. 2 (La.1979) (listing cases).
State v. Horn 55 So. 3d 100 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
State v. Green, supra; State v. Brooks, 92-3331 (La.1/17/95), , |21S tate v. Young, 39,546 (La.App.2d Cir.3/2/05), .
State v. Cooper 2 So. 3d 1172 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
2d Cir.3/2/05), , citing State v. Sherman, 04-1019 (La.10/29/04), ; State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), ; State v. Brooks, 92-3331 (La.1/17/95)
State v. Holmes 5 So. 3d 42 La. 2008
the state must show that the confession was not the product of police coercion and that the crime actually occurred."); State v. Brooks, 92-3331 (La.1/17/95), ("[T]he trial court erred in admitting at the penalty phase that part of Brooks' confession which contained references to multiple unadjudicated offenses not shown by clear and convincing evidence and not supported by competent and reliable evidence offenses which in fact may not have occurred.").
State v. Johnson 993 So. 2d 326 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
State v. Brooks, 92-3331, p. 12, (La.1/17/95), ( Brooks 2 ), (on rehearing).
State v. Anderson 996 So. 2d 973 La. 2008
State v. Brooks, 93-3331, pp. 11-17(La.1/17/95), -75
State v. Scott 975 So. 2d 782 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
See State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.05/22/95), ; State v. Brooks, 92-3331 (La.01/17/95), ; State v. King, 41,084 (La.App.2d Cir.06/30/06), , writ denied, 06-1803 (La.02/16/07), .
State v. Beaner 974 So. 2d 667 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
The defendant in State v. Brooks, XXXX-XXXX (La.1/17/95), , was illiterate and scored a 67, a 44, and a 61 on three separate IQ tests.
State v. Smith 960 So. 2d 369 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
State v. Young, 39,546 (La.App.2d Cir.03/02/05), , citing State v. Sherman, 04-1019 (La.10/29/04), ; State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.05/22/95), ; State v. Brooks, 92-3331 (La.01/17/95), , (La.
State v. Frank 957 So. 2d 724 La. 2007
1997); (rev'd); State v. John Brooks, 92-3331 (La.1/17/95), (rev'd); State v. Marcus Hamilton, 92-1919 (La.9/5/96), (aff'd); State v. Derek Landry, 97-0499 (La.6/29/99), (rev'd); State v. Rogers LaCaze, 99-0584 (La.1/25/02), (aff'd); State v. Shareef Cousin, 96-2973 (La.4/14/98), (rev'd); State v. Juan Smith, 98-1417 (
State v. Blank 955 So. 2d 90 La. 2007
State of Louisiana v. Danny Ray Sherman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Green, 94-0887, p. 11 (La.5/22/95), State v. Brooks, 92-3331, p. 10, (La.1/17/95), ” The Court has had an opportunity to review the testimony associated with the motion to suppress and the testimony of the trial in this matter since the remand to this court.
State v. Sherman 896 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Green, 94-0887, p. 11 (La.5/22/95), ; State v. Brooks, 92-3331, p. 10, (La.1/17/95), ; "
State v. Young 895 So. 2d 753 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
State v. Green, 94-0887, p. 11 (La.5/22/95), ; State v. Brooks, 92-3331, p. 10, (La.1/17/95)
State v. James 897 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
In State v. Brooks, 92-3331, pp. 11-12 (La.1/17/95), , 373 the Court stated: When the added factor of Brooks' acknowledged mental retardation is included in the calculus, the issue of the voluntary nature of Brooks' confession becomes enmeshed in the related, but distinct, question of the knowing and intelligent nature of Brooks' waiver.
State v. Harris 892 So. 2d 1238 La. 2005
328 , 112 L.Ed.2d 339 (1991))(life); State v. Brooks, 92-3331 (La.1/17/95), (rev'd)(life); State v. Hall, 92-0362 (La.4/12/93), (rev'd)(manslaughter); State v. Landry, 97-0499 (La.6/29/99), (rev'd)(life); State v. Cousin, 96-2973 (La.4/14/98), (rev'd)(nolle prosequi); State v. Bright, 98-0398 (La.4/11/00), (rev'd)(life); State v. Thomp
State v. Sherman 886 So. 2d 1116 La. 2004
State v. Green, 94-0887, p. 11 (La.5/22/95), ; State v. Brooks, 92-3331, p. 10, (La.1/17/95)
State v. Manning 885 So. 2d 1044 La. 2004
State v. Brooks, 93-3331 (La.1/17/95), -375 ; State v. Lindsey, 404 * cert.
State v. Corkern 897 So. 2d 57 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
State v. Brooks, 92-3331, p. 10 (La.1/17/95), .
State of Louisiana v. Brian Keith Poullard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
1/17/95), n. 2 (La.1979) (listing cases).
State v. Poullard 863 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
State v. Brooks, 92-3331, p. 10 (La.1/17/95), , , 1223 n. 2 (La.1979) ( listing cases ).
State v. Raiford 846 So. 2d 913 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
State v. Brooks, 92-3331, p. 12, (La.1/17/95), ( Brooks 2 ), (on rehearing).
State v. Payne 833 So. 2d 927 La. 2002
See State v. Brooks, 92-3331, p. 11 (La.1/17/95), .
State v. Brooks 817 So. 2d 288 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
State v. Brooks, 92-3331 (La.1/17/95), .
State v. LaCaze 824 So. 2d 1063 La. 2002
253 , 66 L.Ed.2d 119 (1980); State v. Brooks, 92-3331 (La.1/17/95) (unnecessary to consider whether the execution of 20 year old defendant with a tested IQ range of 44 to 67 would be unconstitutional as death sentence reversed on other grounds).
State v. Blank 804 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
[13] State v. Lavalais, 95-0320 (La.11/25/96)
State v. Hall 750 So. 2d 1105 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Green, 94-0887, p. 11 (La.5/22/95), , citing State v. Brooks, 92-3331, p. 10 (La.1/17/95), .
State v. Hobley 752 So. 2d 771 La. 1999
Defendant correctly argues that our decisions in Connolly, supra, and State v. Brooks (Brooks II), 92-3331 (La.1/17/95), *778 , which the district court did not address, control the issues raised here: whether the evidence introduced by the state in the penalty phase was competent and reliable and whether this evidence was sufficient to prove by clear and convincing evidence that defendant committed the unadjudicated Houston murder.
State v. Jones 733 So. 2d 127 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
State v. Brooks, 92-3331 (La.1/17/95), .
State v. Brown 753 So. 2d 259 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
State v. Brooks, 92-3331 (La.1/17/95), .
State v. Letulier 750 So. 2d 784 La. 1998
[12] The prosecutor supported his position to call Mrs. Badon to the stand based on State v. Brooks, 92-3331, (La.1/1/7/95); ( Brooks II ).
State v. Edmondson 714 So. 2d 1233 La. 1998
State v. Brooks, 92-3331 (La.1/17/95), ; State v. Cousan, 94-2503 (La.11/25/96), .
State v. McCorkle 708 So. 2d 1212 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
State v. Brooks, 92-3331 (La.1/17/95), .
State v. Hammond 706 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
State v. Brooks, 92-3331 p. 12 (La.1/17/95), .
State v. Comeaux 699 So. 2d 16 La. 1997
In State v. Brooks, 92-3331 (La.1/17/95); , the defendant had a tested IQ range of forty-four to sixty-seven and was classified as either mildly to moderately retarded (at the higher end of the range) or moderately to severely retarded (at the lower end of the range).
State v. Connolly 700 So. 2d 810 La. 1997
[8] We recognized that a different confession-corroboration test may be applied to other crimes evidence introduced at the penalty phase of a trial in State v. Brooks (Brooks II), 92-3331 (La.1/17/95), .
State v. Fisher 692 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
State v. Brooks, 92-3331 (La.1/17/95), .
State v. Mitchell 674 So. 2d 250 La. 1996
1/17/95), , an issue was raised as to whether Brooks' retardation (with an IQ of between 44-67) would render his execution unconstitutional.