Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Sterling, 684 So. 2d 74.

15 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Dajuan Alridge La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
App. 4 Cir. 11/13/96, (three-month lapse between the crime and the photographic lineup is not so long as to make the identification unreliable); see also State v. Johnson, 09-1393, p. 8 (La.
State v. Shannon 101 So. 3d 67 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
4 Cir. 11/13/96) , , this court found that three months between the crime and the photographic line-up was not so long as to make the identification unreliable.
State v. Anderson 85 So. 3d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
4 Cir. 11/13/96), , this Court found that a three month lapse between the crime and the photographic line-up was not so long as to make the identification unreliable.
State v. Robinson 81 So. 3d 90 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
4 Cir. 11/13/96), (holding a three-month lapse between the lacrime and the photographic line-up is not so long as to make the identification unreliable); see also State v. Jones, 10-1026, p. 2 (La.10/1/10), (“Nor do we find the two month delay between the lineups an unreasonable length of time that would increase
State v. Williams 66 So. 3d 1207 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
4 Cir. 11/13/96), , this Court held that a three-month lapse between the crime and the photographic lineup is not so long as to make the identification unreliable.
State v. Jones 822 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
State v. Goldston 804 So. 2d 141 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
App. 4th Cir.11/13/96), .
State v. Coston 800 So. 2d 907 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
4 Cir. 11/13/96), , 75-76: The defendant bears the burden of proving that an out-of-court identification itself is suggestive, and that there was a likelihood of misidentification as a result of the identification procedure.
State v. Carter 779 So. 2d 125 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
4 Cir. 11/13/96) , ; State v. Rodriguez, 98-2574 (La.App.
State v. Ballett 756 So. 2d 587 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
App. 4 Cir. 11/13/96), .
State v. Laymon 756 So. 2d 1160 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
4 Cir. 11/13/96), -76 , as follows: The defendant bears the burden of proving [1] that an out-of-court identification itself is suggestive, and [2] that there was a likelihood of misidentification as a result of the identification procedure.
State v. Martello 748 So. 2d 1192 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Brown 744 So. 2d 93 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
State v. Dickerson 708 So. 2d 1288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
4 Cir. 11/13/96) , , two witnesses, a mother and her minor daughter, viewed the photographic line-up at the same time.
State v. Barre 699 So. 2d 893 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
4th Cir. 11/13/96), , where the identification is suggestive but reliable, the identification should not be suppressed.