Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Green, 84 So. 3d 573.

22 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Charles Penn La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2026
App. 4 Cir. 9/28/11), (citing State v. Pierre, 1999-3156, p. 7 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Jamal Christopher Lacon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
4 Cir. 9/28/11), writ denied, 11-2316 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Raven Lamar Wiltz La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
4 Cir. 9/28/11), writ denied, 11-2316 (La.
State v. Newsome 265 So. 3d 1223 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
4 Cir. 9/28/11), , 580, we recognized that one-on-one identifications are generally not favored, although such identification procedures are permissible under certain circumstances where a "substantial likelihood of misidentification" is not present: One-on-one identifications are permissible, for example, when the accused is apprehen
State ex rel. M.B. 217 So. 3d 555 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
4 Cir. 9/28/11), (citations omitted); State v. Briley, 2013-1421, p. 16 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Vincent Devonte Dotson AKA Vincent Dotson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
4 Cir. 9/28/11), writ denied, 2011-2316 (La.3/9/12)
State v. Dove 194 So. 3d 92 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Gaubert 179 So. 3d 982 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Reese 166 So. 3d 1175 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
4th Cir.09/28/11), , writ denied, 2011-2316 (La.03/09/12), , Green was only [fl19 at the time he committed armed robbery.
State v. Farrier 162 So. 3d 1233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Ancalade 158 So. 3d 891 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
4 Cir. 9/28/11), , 579 quoting State v. Anderson, 2007-752, p. 9 (La.App.
State v. Roe 151 So. 3d 838 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 9/28/11) , ; (La.App.
State v. Briley 151 So. 3d 633 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 9/28/11); (“While nine hours between the crime and the identification might be somewhat longer [than] that in many, even most, one-onjone20 identification scenarios, it is not long at all insofar as identification procedures in general and was done within a short period of time after the defendants were apprehended with th
State v. Watkins 146 So. 3d 294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 9/28/11), ; (LaApp.
State v. Celestain 146 So. 3d 874 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State ex rel. S.J. 129 So. 3d 676 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2013
4 Cir. 9/28/11), (“in order to preserve the right to appeal a trial court ruling that excludes evidence, the defendant must make the substance of the evidence known to the trial court”).
State v. Vargas-Alcerreca 126 So. 3d 569 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
4 Cir. 9/28/11), , writ denied, 2011-2316 (La.S/9/12), .
State v. Edgar 140 So. 3d 22 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
4 Cir. 9/28/11) , , writ denied, 2011-2316 (La.3/9/12), ; (La.
State v. Caliste 125 So. 3d 8 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
4 Cir. 9/28/11), , this Court set out the pertinent law regarding suggestive out-of-court identifications as follows: The defendant bears the burden of proving that an out-of-court identification was suggestive and that there was a substantial likelihood of misidentification as a result of the identification procedure.
State v. Santos-Castro 120 So. 3d 933 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Buhcannon 112 So. 3d 312 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Breaux 110 So. 3d 281 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
4 Cir. 9/28/11), , writ denied, 2011-2316 (La.3/9/12), , wherein this Court found that a defendant who failed to proffer the substance of an officer’s testimony was precluded from raising the issue on appeal.