Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Calloway, 718 So. 2d 559.

21 citing documents.

State v. Wilson 167 So. 3d 903 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
5 Cir. 8/25/98) , , writ denied, 98-2435, 98-2438 (La.1/8/99), , photographic arrays were presented to the witness on two separate occasions, three days apart, and the witness did not identify anyone from these photographs.
State v. Abdul 94 So. 3d 801 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
5 Cir. 8/25/98), , writs denied, 98-2435 (La.1/8/99), and 98-2438 (La.1/8/99), .
State v. Mangerchine 88 So. 3d 621 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
5 Cir. 8/25/98) , , writs denied, 98-2435 and 98-2438 (La.1/8/99) , (citing U.S. v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 , 105 S.Ct.
State v. Flores 66 So. 3d 1118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
5 Cir. 8/25/98) , , writs denied, 98-2435 (La.1/8/99), and 98-2438 (La.1/8/99), .
State v. Declouet 52 So. 3d 89 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
5 Cir. 8/25/98), , writs denied, 98-2435 (La.1/8/99), and 98-2438 (La.1/8/99), (citing U.S. v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 , 96 S.Ct.
State v. Williams 3 So. 3d 526 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
5 Cir. 8/25/98), , 'writs denied, 98-2435 and 98-2438 (La.1/8/99), , The admissibility of an identification is controlled by Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 , 97 S.Ct.
State v. Lande 934 So. 2d 280 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
5 Cir. 8/25/98) , , writs denied, 98-2435 and 98-2438 (La.1/8/99), , citing United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 , 105 S.Ct.
State v. Froiland 910 So. 2d 956 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
5 Cir. 8/25/98) , , writs denied 98-2435, 98-2438 (La.1/8/99), .
State of Louisiana v. Cedric Daniels La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
5 Cir. 8/25/98), the defendant contended that the identification procedure was suggestive.
State v. Daniels 873 So. 2d 822 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
5 Cir. 8/25/98) , , the defendant contended that the identification procedure was suggestive.
State v. Evans 864 So. 2d 682 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
5 Cir. 8/25/98) , , writs denied, 98-2435, 98-2438 (La.1/8/99), .
State v. Rodriguez 839 So. 2d 106 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
5 Cir. 8/25/98) , , writs denied, 98-2435, 98-2438 (La.1/8/99), , which reversed the defendant's murder convictions because the defendant's right to present a defense was "adversely limited" when the trial court refused to allow the defendant to present the testimony of alibi witnesses.
State v. Hayes 806 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Higgins 800 So. 2d 918 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
App. 5 Cir. 8/25/98), , writ denied, 98-2435 (La.1/8/99), , a witness positively identified defendant from a physical lineup.
State v. Dyer 794 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Calloway 781 So. 2d 849 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
5 Cir. 8/25/98) , , writs denied, 98-2435, 98-2438 (La.1/8/99), .
State v. King 760 So. 2d 540 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
App. 5 Cir. 8/25/98), , writs denied, 98-2435, 98-2438 (La.1/8/99), .
State v. Pugh 750 So. 2d 313 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
5 Cir. 8/25/98) , , writ denied, 98-2435, 98-2438 (La.1/8/99), , this court stated: A defendant challenging an identification procedure must prove that the identification was suggestive and that there was a substantial likelihood of misidentification.
Distinguished State v. Dauzart 749 So. 2d 806 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
5th Cir. 8/25/98), , writs denied, 98-2435 (La.1/8/99) and 98-2438 (La.1/8/99), .
State v. Anderson 750 So. 2d 1008 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
5 Cir. 8/25/98) , , writs denied, 98-2435, 98-2438 (La.1/8/99), .
State v. Hester 746 So. 2d 95 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
5 Cir. 8/25/98), , writs denied, 98-2435 (La.1/8/99), , 98-2438 (La.1/8/99), , in which this court held that, in determining whether the ruling on a defendant's motion to suppress is correct, an appellate court is not limited to the evidence adduced at the hearing on the motion to suppress, but may a