Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Dorsey, 22 So. 2d 273.

55 citing documents.

State v. Jackson 926 So. 2d 815 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
This Court has made exceptions for written confessions ( , (1945)), videotaped recordings of a confession (State v. Hall, 253 La.
State v. Freeman 461 So. 2d 496 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
(1945), as authority for the assertion that appointment of co-counsel on the day of trial denies a defendant a reasonable opportunity to prepare a defense.
State v. Boyd 359 So. 2d 931 La. 1978
State v. Alexander 351 So. 2d 505 La. 1977
State v. Yates 350 So. 2d 1169 La. 1977
Exceptions to this rule have recognized the right of a defendant to view and copy his written confession in the possession of the prosecutor, , (1945); to obtain production of a taped confession, State v. Hall, 253 La.
State v. Hodges 349 So. 2d 250 La. 1977
Exceptions to this rule have recognized the right of a defendant to view and copy his written confession in the possession of the prosecutor, , (1945); to obtain production of a taped confession, State v. Hall, 253 La.
State v. Tyler 342 So. 2d 574 La. 1977
Exceptions to this rule have recognized the right of a defendant to view and copy his written confession in the possession of the prosecutor, , (1945); to obtain production of a taped confession, State v. Hall, 253 La.
State v. Jenkins 340 So. 2d 157 La. 1976
The tape-recorded statements were distinguished from mere oral statements and placed in a category of discoverable statements, along with written statements ( , (1945)) and video taped statements (see State v. Hall, 253 La.
State v. Perkins 337 So. 2d 1145 La. 1976
This Court has made exceptions for written confessions ( , (1945)), video-taped recordings of a confession ( State v. Hall, 253 La.
State v. Brumfield 329 So. 2d 181 La. 1976
Exceptions to this rule have recognized the right of a defendant to view and copy his written confession in the possession of the prosecutor, , (1945); to obtain production of a taped confession, State v. Hall, 253 La.
State v. Chase 327 So. 2d 391 La. 1976
(1945), which requires the pre-trial production of defendant's written confessions in the possession of the State, does not extend to statements which are purely exculpatory.
State v. Ball 328 So. 2d 81 La. 1976
Exceptions to this rule have recognized the right of a defendant to view and copy his written confession in the possession of the prosecutor, , (1945); to obtain production of a taped confession, State v. Hall, 253 La.
State v. Liesk 326 So. 2d 871 La. 1976
State v. Howard 325 So. 2d 812 La. 1976
Exceptions to this rule have recognized the right of a defendant to view and copy his written confession in the possession of the prosecutor, , (1945); to obtain production of a taped confession, State v. Hall, 253 La.
State v. White 321 So. 2d 491 La. 1975
(1945); to obtain production of a taped confession, State v. Hall, 253 La.
State v. Hammler 312 So. 2d 306 La. 1975
Further, even though "these statements were not obtained while the defendants were in the actual custody of the police, and would thus not be regarded as a confession in the traditional sense of the word, the fact remains that they are inculpatory as * * * defined and therefore within the Dorsey rule [ , (1945)]."
State v. Boothe 310 So. 2d 826 La. 1975
The tape-recorded statements were distinguished from mere oral statements and placed in a category of discoverable statements, along with written statements *830 ( , (1945)) and video taped statements (see State v. Hall, 253 La.
State v. Collins 308 So. 2d 263 La. 1975
Exceptions to this rule have recognized the right of a defendant to view and copy his written confession in the possession of the prosecutor, , (1945); to obtain production of a taped confession, State v. Hall, 253 La.
State v. LeBlanc 305 So. 2d 416 La. 1974
(1945), that this Court established the rule that a defendant in a criminal proceeding is entitled upon request to a pre-trial inspection of any written confession or inculpatory statement alleged to have been made by him and which is in the possession of the State.
State v. Watson 301 So. 2d 653 La. 1974
This court has consistently refused to extend this rule which was first announced in State v. Dorsey, *655 , (1945).
State v. Cordier 297 So. 2d 181 La. 1974
(1945) and State v. Hall, 253 La.
State v. Barnard 287 So. 2d 770 La. 1973
After discussion of the jurisprudence and careful consideration of the argument of the defense, , (1945) into full pre-trial discovery.
State v. Baker 288 So. 2d 52 La. 1973
Other than written confessions of the accused, , (1945); the video taped confession of the accused, State v. Hall, 253 La.
State v. Bendo 281 So. 2d 106 La. 1973
(1945) this court established the rule that a defendant in a criminal proceeding is entitled upon request to a pre-trial inspection of any written confession or inculpatory statement alleged to have been made by him and which is in the possession of the state.
State v. Frezal 278 So. 2d 64 La. 1973
(1945), it was decided that a defendant was entitled to a pre-trial inspection of his own written confession.
State v. Himel 257 So. 2d 670 La. 1972
(1945), the defendant’s right to pre-trial inspection of his own written confession has been recognized in the jurisprudence, and our Code of Criminal Procedure Article 703 makes the written confession subject to the motion to suppress.
State v. Anderson 229 So. 2d 329 La. 1969
State v. Brumfield 229 So. 2d 76 La. 1969
“Defendant contends that since the report contained the essence of the confession, it was subject to pre-trial discovery under a logical extension of our • , , requiring the production of written confessions.
State v. Crook 221 So. 2d 473 La. 1969
State v. Hall 218 So. 2d 320 La. 1969
He then declared: “ , , it was decided that a defendant was entitled to a pre-trial inspection of his own written confession without reference to an oral confession, however, subsequent rulings have maintained that a defendant is not entitled to a pre-trial inspection of an oral confession.
State v. Manuel 217 So. 2d 369 La. 1968
Defendant contends that since the report contained the essence of the confession, it was subject to pre-trial discovery under a , , requiring the production of written confessions.
State v. Dean 209 So. 2d 16 La. 1968
868 ; , ; and State v. Mattio, 212 La.
State v. Hopper 203 So. 2d 222 La. 1967
State v. Hunter 195 So. 2d 273 La. 1967
Hence, , (1945), requiring the production of written confessions.
State v. Johnson 192 So. 2d 135 La. 1966
State v. Brown 186 So. 2d 576 La. 1966
State v. Pallet, 246 La.
State v. Dickson 180 So. 2d 403 La. 1965
483 , (1964); , (1945); 6 Wigmore on Evidence (3d ed. 1940) § 1859g.
State v. Simien 178 So. 2d 266 La. 1965
this court held that counsel for the accused was entitled to a pretrial inspection, under the supervision of the court, of a written confession of the accused when it was shown that the State relied on and intended to use this confession in the trial of the case.
State v. Smart 170 So. 2d 365 La. 1964
.” State v. Defiore, 231 La.
State v. Pailet 165 So. 2d 294 La. 1964
State v. Bickham 121 So. 2d 207 La. 1960
the defendant is entitled to inspect and copy his written confession but there is no law under which verbal statements made by a defendant before trial may be ordered reduced to writing and submitted to defendant.
State v. Rue 107 So. 2d 702 La. 1958
713 , ; , ; State v. Pierre, 198 La.
State v. Weston 95 So. 2d 305 La. 1957
928, , it was held that the accused was entitled to a pre-trial inspection of a written confession alleged to have been made by him.
State v. Eubanks 94 So. 2d 262 La. 1957
State v. Defiore 92 So. 2d 717 La. 1957
State v. Lea 84 So. 2d 169 La. 1955
this Court set the precedent compelling the state to turn over to defense counsel in advance of trial copies of written confessions it might have in its possession.
State v. Labat 75 So. 2d 333 La. 1954
If the State had intended to use the confession, the defendant would have been entitled to a pre-trial inspection, but, since it did not, , .
State v. Shourds 71 So. 2d 340 La. 1954
4 ; , ; State v. Williams, 211 La.
State v. Haddad 59 So. 2d 411 La. 1952
Defendant-relator does not contend that his statement was a confession or admission of which he would be entitled to a , .
State v. Martinez 57 So. 2d 888 La. 1952