Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Green, 655 So. 2d 272.

274 citing documents.

State ex rel. J.J.M. 207 So. 3d 609 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State of Louisiana v. Johnny Lee Harris 217 So. 3d 255 La. 2016
State ex rel. Sparkman v. State 202 So. 3d 488 La. 2016
State of Louisiana v. Larry Broussard, Jr. AKA Larry James Broussard Jr. AKA Larry J. Broussard Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
5/22/95), the supreme court held that since the trial court immediately asked the State for a race-neutral explanation after the defense raised a Batson challenge, there was a ―tacit finding by the trial court that the defense had met its burden[.]‖ in State v. Pa
State v. Broussard 201 So. 3d 400 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
5/22/95), , the supreme court held that since the trial court immediately asked the State for a race-neutral explanation after the defense’ raised a Batson challenge, there was.a “tacit finding by the trial court that the defense had met its burden[.]” in State v. Payn
State v. Flowers 204 So. 3d 271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Toliver 205 So. 3d 948 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Barnes 203 So. 3d 1090 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Williams 199 So. 3d 1222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), .
STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS READO NARGO A/K/A RENALDO NARGO La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
State v. Nargo 193 So. 3d 1263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Green, 94-0887, p. 11 (La.5/22/95); .
State ex rel. Preston v. State 193 So. 3d 128 La. 2016
None of these steps were proven in this case.
Distinguished State v. Lundy 195 So. 3d 587 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
rman again advised Defendant, “If you want to put anything on the record you have to sign this form” and “If you want this statement to be admitted into the record you have to sign this form right here.” Defendant submits that the State had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant made his statement freely and voluntarily, citing State v. Green, 94-887, at p. 8 (La.5/22/95), , and notes that pursuant to Harris , 2011-0941, at p. 13, 98 So.3d at 913 , a voluntary waiver is d
State v. McKinney 194 So. 3d 699 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
See State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), .
State v. Matthews 191 So. 3d 1080 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
See State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), -81 .
State v. Ellis 195 So. 3d 480 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), ; (La.App.
State v. Williams 185 So. 3d 817 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), -81 .
State ex rel. C.H. 183 So. 3d 567 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), 1 .
State v. Moultrie 182 So. 3d 1017 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), -81 .
State v. Crucia 181 So. 3d 751 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), -81 .
State of Louisiana v. Lamondre Tucker 181 So. 3d 590 La. 2015
to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self- incrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel,‟” State v. Green, 94- 0887, p. 10, (La.
State v. Jordan 174 So. 3d 1259 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), .
State v. Little 174 So. 3d 1219 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.05/22/95), .
State v. Johnson 175 So. 3d 442 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
In State v. Green, 1994-0887 (La.05/22/95), , the supreme court outlined a multifactor approach for determining whether a prima facie case has been made: The defendant may offer any facts relevant to the question of the prosecutor’s discriminatory intent to satisfy this burden.
State v. Taylor 165 So. 3d 1115 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Instate v. Green, 94-0887, pp. 9-10 (La.5/22/95), ; State v. Labostrie, 96-2003, p. 5 (La.App.
State v. Daigle 167 So. 3d 980 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), .
State v. Carter 167 So. 3d 970 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), -81 .
State of Louisiana v. Johnny Lee Harris La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95)
State v. Thompson 163 So. 3d 139 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), .
State v. Pounds 166 So. 3d 1037 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), -81 .
State v. Bell 169 So. 3d 417 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), -81 .
State v. Taylor 161 So. 3d 963 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
State v. Green, 1994-0887 (La.05/22/95), .
State v. Zeno 155 So. 3d 4 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), -81 .
State of Louisiana v. David E. Bender 152 So. 3d 126 La. 2014
State v. Green, 94-0887, p. 28 (La.5/22/95), (quoting Batson, 476 U.S. at 94 n. 18, 106 S.Ct.
State v. Ellis 144 So. 3d 1152 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
State v. *1161 Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), ; (La.App.
State v. Parker 141 So. 3d 839 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
In State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.05/22/95), , the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the sole focus of the Bat-son inquiry is the intent of the prosecutor at the time he exercised his peremptory strikes.
State v. Milton 142 So. 3d 157 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2014
For instance, in State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95); -82 , the Louisiana Supreme Court determined the defendant’s waiver of his rights was valid, even though the defendant was “mildly retarded,” had a 12(lmental age of ten years, and suffered from “brain dysfunction.” In fact, it was even the forensic psychology expert’s opinion that the defendant had been unable to
State v. Williams 137 So. 3d 832 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Green, 94-0887, pp. 9-10 (La.5/22/95), ; State v. Labostrie, 96-2003, p. 5 (La.App.
State v. Jordan 145 So. 3d 388 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See State v. Green, 94-0887, p. 11 (La.5/22/95), -81 .
State v. Jefferson 140 So. 3d 235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Sherman, 04-1019, p. 1 (La.10/29/04), ; State v. Green, 94-0887, p. 11 (La.5/22/95), .
State v. Cope 137 So. 3d 151 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
1745 , 161 L.Ed.2d 612 (2005); State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), .
State v. Leblanc 137 So. 3d 656 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), -81 .
State v. Parker 124 So. 3d 516 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), ; (La.App.
State v. Davis 121 So. 3d 1207 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
In State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), , multi-factors for determining whether the prima facie case were discussed: The defendant may offer any facts relevant to the question of the prosecutor’s discriminatory intent to satisfy this burden.
State v. Welch 115 So. 3d 490 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), -81 .
State v. Mendoza 113 So. 3d 288 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2013
See State v. Green, 94-0887, p. 15 (La.05/22/95), (finding that the trial court was justified in relying upon the defendant’s familiarity with the criminal justice system because it tended to show that the custodial interrogation was not an experience foreign to Green, and that prior Boykinizations indicated a repeated exposure to Miranda rights and were relevan
State v. Grady 108 So. 3d 845 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.05/22/95), .
State v. Mason 109 So. 3d 429 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
In State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), , the supreme court outlined a multifactor approach for determining whether a prima facie case has been made: The defendant may offer any facts relevant to the question of the prosecutor’s discriminatory intent to satisfy this burden.
State v. Dunham 111 So. 3d 1095 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
See State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), -81 .
State ex rel. T.H. 106 So. 3d 703 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Therefore, when a trial court denies a motion to suppress, factual and credibility determinations should not be reversed in the absence of a clear abuse of the trial court’s discretion, i.e., unless such ruling is not supported by “reliable evidence.” State v. Green, 94-0887, p. 11 (La.5/22/95), .