Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Ross, 31 So. 2d 842.

16 citing documents.

State v. Harper 485 So. 2d 224 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Richard, supra; , (1947); LRS 15:451.
State v. Cannon 372 So. 2d 1237 La. 1979
State v. Edwards 287 So. 2d 518 La. 1973
State v. Anderson 229 So. 2d 329 La. 1969
State v. Bueche 142 So. 2d 381 La. 1962
Pertinent to this case is the court’s ■ , - , where it was said: “The jurisprudence is well settled that a confession will not be excluded because of mere exhortation or adjuration to speak the truth, but such exhortation or adjuration, accompanied by an expression that it would be better for the accused to tell the truth, has been the subject
State v. Thomas 135 So. 2d 275 La. 1961
812 , ; , ; State v. Wilson, 214 La.
State v. Johnson 86 So. 2d 108 La. 1956
and State v. Wilson, 214 La.
State v. Johnson 86 So. 2d 108 La. 1956
and State v. Wilson, 214 La.
State v. Hilliard 78 So. 2d 835 La. 1955
The test in such cases, , , is “ ‘ “Was the inducement of a nature calculated, under the circumstances, to induce a confession, irrespective of its truth or falsity ?” ’ ” Applying this test to-the facts in the Richard case, this court further explained: “ * * * it is well settled' that a confession will not be excluded whe
State v. Richard 66 So. 2d 589 La. 1953
The test in such cases, , , is: “Was the induce *679 ment of a nature calculated, under the circumstances, to induce a confession, irrespective of its truth or falsity?’” The inducement here was not of that nature because it contained a warning to the accused not to confess anything of which he was not guilty.
State v. Wilson 46 So. 2d 738 La. 1950
812 ; , ; State v. Wilson, 214 La.
State v. Jugger 47 So. 2d 46 La. 1950
However, if it be conceded that the first two confessions were inadmissible because the language of Deputy Sheriff Bonura addressed to Washington, that it would be better for him to “come clean and tell the truth,” was coercive or an indirect promise, , , and that the words of Deputy Sheriff Stewart, that he would see that the men were put in the parish jail and given the protection of a fair trial, held out an inducement to speak, State v. Henry, supra, the confessions were inadmissible only be
State v. Honeycutt 44 So. 2d 313 La. 1950
812 , ; , ; State v. Wilson, 214 La.
State v. Robinson 41 So. 2d 848 La. 1949
This court has but recently held, , , 845 , that, where an officer stated to one *Page 982 accused of crime "the best thing to do is to tell the truth because we have the evidence against you", it was not to be regarded as an exhortation to speak the truth but as a declaration calculated to induce a confession.
State v. Wilson 37 So. 2d 804 La. 1948
812 , ; , , decided in May, 1947, and rehearing refused in June 1947.
State v. Crittenden 36 So. 2d 645 La. 1948
Article 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; State v. Henry, supra; , .