Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Santos-Castro, 120 So. 3d 933.

14 citing documents.

Darvin Castro-Santos v. State of Louisiana La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
State v. Hutsell 241 So. 3d 542 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2018
App. 4 Cir. 7/31/13), , 946-47 ), this Court employed the five Manson criteria to assist in assessing the reliability of eyewitness identifications when the issue was raised that the State failed to negate any reasonable probability of misidentification of the defendant.
State v. Mahogany 225 So. 3d 489 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
App. 4 Cir. 7/31/13), -47 , writ denied, 13-2151 (La.
State v. Castro 206 So. 3d 1059 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
4 Cir. 7/31/13), -44 (same).
State v. Price 216 So. 3d 1019 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Lambert 191 So. 3d 630 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
4 Cir. 7/31/13), , citing State v. Stukes, 08-1217, p. 25 (La.App.
State v. Jones 182 So. 3d 251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
4 Cir. 7/31/13), , citing State v. Stukes, 08-1217, p. 25 (La.App.
State v. Ellis 161 So. 3d 64 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
4 Cir. 7/31/13) , (quoting State v. Williams, 2008-1046, p. 2 (La.App.
State v. Alexis 157 So. 3d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 7/31/13) , applied the factors enunciated in Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 116 , 97 S.Ct.
State v. Roe 151 So. 3d 838 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 7/31/13), -947 (citing State v. Lewis, 11-0999, pp. 6-9 (La.App.
State v. Briley 151 So. 3d 633 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 7/31/13) , -47 , as follows: The five factors include: 1) the witness’s opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; 2) the witness’s degree of attention; 3) the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal; 4) the level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation; and 5) the time between the crime and
State v. Austin 146 So. 3d 716 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
See State v. Wilson, 12-1765 (La.App.4th Cir.2/12/14), , citing State v. Santos-Castro, 12-0568 (La.App.4th Cir.07/31/13), -44 , and State v. Robichaux, 00-1234 (La.App.4th Cir.3/14/01), .
State v. Wilson 138 So. 3d 661 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 7/31/13), -44 (implicit waiver where defense counsel announced defendant “was ready for sentencing,” but had a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied, whereupon the State announced that it was ready for sentencing, and the trial court imposed sentence); State v. Robichaux, 00-1234, p. 7 (La.App.
State v. Jones 131 So. 3d 1065 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013