DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

274 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Easton Joseph Francisco La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    5/22/95), the supreme court reversed the appellate court’s finding that in light of un-contradicted medical testimony establishing defendant’s mental retardation and his brain dysfunction, he could not make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his constitutional rights.
  • State v. Francisco 101 So. 3d 617 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    In State v. Green, 94-887 (La.5/22/95), , the supreme court reversed the appellate court’s finding that in light of un-contradicted medical testimony establishing defendant’s mental retardation and his brain dysfunction, he could not make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his constitutional rights.
  • State v. Letell 103 So. 3d 1129 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    See State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), -81 .
  • State v. Gray 101 So. 3d 515 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    State v. Brumfield, 96-2667 (La.10/20/98), (cit *521 ing State v. Green, 94-0887, p. 11 (La.5/22/95); ).
  • State v. Lilly 111 So. 3d 45 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    See State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), -81 .
  • State v. Harris 98 So. 3d 903 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    See State v. Green, 94-0887, p. 19 (La.5/22/95), ; State v. Vigne, 01-2940 (La.6/21/02), .
  • State of Louisiana v. Robert Daniel Wilkins La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    5/22/95), and State v. Myers, 99- 1803 (La.
  • State v. Wilkins 94 So. 3d 983 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    In support of this argument, he cites State v. Green, 94-887 (La.5/22/95), , and State v. Myers, 99-1803 (La.4/11/00), .
  • State v. Waldrop 93 So. 3d 780 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    See State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), -81 .
  • State of Louisiana v. Ordesto Marando Toussaint La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    5/22/95), -81 (footnote omitted).
  • State v. Toussaint 94 So. 3d 62 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    State v. Green, 94-887, p. 11 (La.5/22/95), -81 (footnote omitted).
  • State v. Thornton 83 So. 3d 1024 La. 2012
    ), (trial court’s suppression of defendant’s spontaneous statements was “contrary to the larger body of jurisprudence on voluntariness”) (citing Connelly); (“[A]n essential prerequisite for suppressing a statement on voluntariness grounds is misconduct or overreaching by the police.”) (citing Connelly); n. 7 (La.1995) (“This Court has endorsed, without much discussion, the Supreme Court’s current approach.”) (citing Schrader).
  • State v. Massey 91 So. 3d 453 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), .
  • State v. Nelson 85 So. 3d 21 La. 2012
    State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), .
  • State v. Smith 90 So. 3d 1114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    10/29/04), ; State v. Green, 94-0887, p. 11 (La.5/22/95), ).
  • State v. Seals 83 So. 3d 285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    State v. Green, 94-0887, p. 24 (La.5/22/95), .
  • State v. Victor 82 So. 3d 301 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), .
  • State v. Harris 79 So. 3d 1037 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    See State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), .
  • State v. LeBlanc 76 So. 3d 572 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    State v. Green, 94-0887, pp. 9-10 (La.5/22/95), ; State v. Labostrie, 96-2003, p. 5 (La.App.
  • State v. McElveen 73 So. 3d 1033 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    State v. Green, 94-0887, p. 24 (La.5/22/95), -88 .
  • State v. Wesley 77 So. 3d 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    See State v. Welch, 11-0274, p. 1 (La.4/29/11), ; State v. Green, 94-0887, p. 11 (La.5/22/95), -81 .
  • State v. Dorsey 74 So. 3d 603 La. 2011
    For example, in State v. Green, this Court held “the defendant may offer any facts relevant to the question of the prosecutor’s discriminatory intent to satisfy this burden.” 94-0887, p. 24 (La.5/22/95); .
  • State v. Friday 73 So. 3d 913 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    State v. Green, 94-0887, p. 11 (La.5/22/95), -81 .
  • State v. Sparks 68 So. 3d 435 La. 2011
    1279 , 167 L.Ed.2d 100 (2007); State v. Green, 94-0887, p. 11 (La.5/22/95), .
  • State v. Holand 64 So. 3d 330 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Step one “places a burden of production or of ‘going forward’ on the defendant.” State v. Green, 94-0887, p. 24 (La.5/22/95), .
  • State v. Kimble 62 So. 3d 782 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    See State v. Green, 94-0887, p. 11 (La.5/22/95), .
  • State v. Shannon 61 So. 3d 706 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    State v. Green, 94-0887, (La.5/22/95), .
  • State v. Sinclair 55 So. 3d 47 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    See State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), .
  • State v. Horn 55 So. 3d 100 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    In State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), , the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the sole focus of the Bat-son inquiry is on the intent of the prosecutor at the time he exercised his peremptory strikes.
  • State v. Square 46 So. 3d 1239 La. 2010
    See also State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), .
  • State v. Bess 47 So. 3d 524 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    In State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), , the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the sole focus of the Bat-son inquiry is upon the intent of the prosecutor at the time he exercised his peremptory strikes.
  • Donald R. Alexander v. Ira M. Tate La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    5/22/95), where our supreme court adopted the rule set forth in Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 359, 111 S.Ct.
  • Alexander v. Tate 30 So. 3d 1122 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    345 , 148 L.Ed.2d 277 (2000) (citing State v. Green, 94-887, p. 25 (La.5/22/95), , where our supreme court adopted the rule set forth in Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 359 , 111 S.Ct.
  • State v. Davis 30 So. 3d 201 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    State v. Green, 94-0887, pp. 9-10 (La.5/22/95), ; State v. Labostrie, 96-2003, p. 5 (La.App.
  • State v. Keller 30 So. 3d 919 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    That intent satisfies the fundamental purpose of Miranda, which is to “assure that the individual’s right to choose between speech and silence remained] unfettered throughout the interrogation process.” See, Robertson , 97-177 at 27-28, 712 So.2d at 31 , quoting State v. Green, 94-887, p. 10 (La.5/22/95), -88, n. 8 .
  • State v. Hunt 25 So. 3d 746 La. 2009
    See, State v. Green, 94-0887, p. 11 (La.5/22/95), (“[A]s we have often stated in the past, because the evaluation of witness credibility often plays such a large part in the context of a motion to suppress a confession, reviewing courts should defer to the finding of the trial judge unless his finding is not adequately supported by reliable evidence.”).
  • State v. Wilson 28 So. 3d 394 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), .
  • 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. Morrison 999 So. 2d 1197 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    1745 , 161 L.Ed.2d 612 (2005); State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), .
  • State of Louisiana v. Norris A. Palms La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    11/2/07), (quoting State v. Green, 94-887 (La.5/22/95), ).
  • State of Louisiana v. Jimmy Morchan Turner La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
  • State v. Holmes 5 So. 3d 42 La. 2008
    See e.g., State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), -84 (La.1995) (mildly retarded defendant's waiver of rights was knowing and intelligent, even though psychologist testified defendant was unable to comprehend his rights; psychologist also testified defendant was educable and could be made to understand rights, police officers testified defendant understood his ri
  • State of Louisiana v. Raymond J. Jackson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    11/2/07), (quoting State v. Green, 94-887 (La.5/22/95), ).
  • State v. Johnson 993 So. 2d 326 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), .
  • State v. Ayche 978 So. 2d 1143 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
    1279 , 167 L.Ed.2d 100 (2007) (citing State v. Sherman, 04-1019 (La.10/29/04), ; State v. Green, 94-887 (La.5/22/95), )).
  • State v. Williams 977 So. 2d 1101 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    State v. Green, 94-0887, pp. 9-10 (La.5/22/95), ; State v. Labostrie, 96-2003, p. 5 (La.App.
  • 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
    1745 , 161 L.Ed.2d 612 (2005); State v. Green, XXXX-XXXX (La.5/22/95), .
  • State v. Coleman 970 So. 2d 511 La. 2007
    Under these circumstances, we find that the rule announced in Hernandez v. New York, supra ., and adopted in State v. Green, 94-0887, p. 25 (La.5/22/95), , applies: "Once a prosecutor has offered a race-neutral explanation for the peremptory challenges and the trial court has ruled on the ultimate question of intentional discrimination, the preliminary issue of whether the defendant had made a prima facie showing becomes moot."
  • 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.