Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Johnson, 443 So. 2d 744.

15 citing documents.

State v. Washington 557 So. 2d 368 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. West 553 So. 2d 945 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
State v. Rhodes 552 So. 2d 585 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
State v. Cade 539 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
(4th Cir.1983); (2nd Cir.1983).
State v. Johnson 519 So. 2d 212 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
The objectionable testimony here consists of Parfait's repeating what Craft told him about the crime, (La.App.
State v. Franklin 519 So. 2d 292 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
State v. Monroe 513 So. 2d 323 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Washington 482 So. 2d 118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Sonnier, supra; (La.App.
State v. Washington 482 So. 2d 118 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
State v. Sonnier, supra ; (La.App.
State v. Harris 480 So. 2d 943 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
1983); (appendix); (La.App.
State v. Pruitt 474 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
State v. Pruitt 474 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Signal 467 So. 2d 1375 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
There are five factors to consider in determining whether an identification, although perhaps suggestive, was nevertheless reliable: (1) The opportunity to view; (2) The degree of attention; (3) The accuracy of the description; (4) The witness’ level of certainty; and (5) The time between the crime and the confrontation; (4th Cir.1983); State v. Guillot, supra.
State v. Hunter 454 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Elzy 451 So. 2d 1167 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984