Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Robinson, 41 So. 2d 848.

37 citing documents.

State v. Rogers 375 So. 2d 1304 La. 1979
State v. Hills 354 So. 2d 186 La. 1978
State v. Payne 338 So. 2d 682 La. 1976
610 , (1950); , (1949); State v. Scarbrough, 167 La.
State v. Carson 336 So. 2d 844 La. 1976
State v. Brumfield 329 So. 2d 181 La. 1976
State v. Simmons 328 So. 2d 149 La. 1976
State v. Whatley 320 So. 2d 123 La. 1975
State v. Peters 315 So. 2d 678 La. 1975
For instance, , (1949), in the face of testimony by the jailer, to whom defendant had allegedly confessed, that the confession was free and voluntary, and by one of the officers who questioned the defendant that the accused had not been mistreated, this Court reversed the trial court's finding that the confession was f
State v. Sims 310 So. 2d 587 La. 1975
State v. Monroe 305 So. 2d 902 La. 1974
State v. Fruge 204 So. 2d 287 La. 1967
State v. Andrus 199 So. 2d 867 La. 1967
For instance, , , this court held that the statement of the accused, although not a confession, revealed the existence of criminal intent, and that for it to be admissible the same predicate required for admitting a confession into evidence had to be laid.
State v. Carter 181 So. 2d 763 La. 1966
on rehearing, "The rule now universally obtaining in all countries where the common law prevails, that a confession of a person accused of a crime is admissible in evidence only if freely and voluntarily made, is the result of the humanitarian principles evolved by courts during civilization's progres
State v. Simien 178 So. 2d 266 La. 1965
In the course of that opinion we said, , 41 So.
State v. Bueche 142 So. 2d 381 La. 1962
899 , ; , ; State v. Crittenden, 214 La.
State v. Fulghum 138 So. 2d 569 La. 1962
Once in evidence, of course, it is for the jury to say what weight shall be accorded a confession.” , ; State v. Joseph, 217 La.
State v. Maney 135 So. 2d 473 La. 1961
899 , ; , ; State v. Crittenden, 214 La.
State v. Thomas 135 So. 2d 275 La. 1961
317 , ; , ; State v. Honeycutt, 216 La.
State v. Rogers 132 So. 2d 819 La. 1961
317 , ; , ; State v. Honeycutt, 216 La.
State v. Davis 132 So. 2d 866 La. 1961
In other words, in the instant case the State, to prove that the confessions were given freely and voluntarily and not under the circumstances set forth by the defendant, , , and State v. Honeycutt, 216 La.
State v. Wilson 127 So. 2d 158 La. 1961
317 , ; , ; State v. Honeycutt, 216 La.
State v. Savell 116 So. 2d 513 La. 1959
State v. Domino 102 So. 2d 227 La. 1958
81 , ; , ; State v. Clark, 228 La.
State v. Weston 95 So. 2d 305 La. 1957
317 , ; , ; State v. Honeycutt, 216 La.
State v. Palmer 94 So. 2d 439 La. 1957
81 , ; , ; State v. Clark, 228 La.
State v. Jones 88 So. 2d 655 La. 1956
81 , ; , ; State v. Clark, 228 La.
State v. Johnson 86 So. 2d 108 La. 1956
and State v. Clark, 228 La.
State v. Johnson 86 So. 2d 108 La. 1956
and State v. Clark, 228 La.
State v. Walker 85 So. 2d 497 La. 1956
and State v. Crittenden, 214 La.
State v. Clark 84 So. 2d 452 La. 1955
* * *» , , this court held that admissions involving the existence of a criminal intent or inculpatory facts are governed by the rules applicable to confessions.
Wier v. Grubb 82 So. 2d 1 La. 1955
967 , ]: “The rationale of the reasoning for relief by petitioner is supported in the case of Kyle v. Wadley, D.C., 24 F.Supp.
State v. Franklin 79 So. 2d 490 La. 1955
State v. Sanford 48 So. 2d 272 La. 1950
(on rehearing), this court gave a short historical background of Articles 451 and 452 of the Code of Criminal Law and Procedure governing confessions and their admissibility in evidence and concluded that such admissibility “is predicated' upon the state’s establishing its free and voluntary char
State v. Wilson 46 So. 2d 738 La. 1950
548 , and the authorities cited therein; , 41 So.
State v. Joseph 46 So. 2d 118 La. 1950
and “Before what purposes [purports] to be a confession can be introduced in evidence, it must be affirmatively shown that it was free and voluntary, and not made under the influence of fear, duress, intimidation, menaces, threats, inducements or promises” (brackets ours) and, as pointed out in the recent case of State v. Robinson, Jr., On Rehearing, No. 39,041 of the Docket of the Supreme Court, , 41 So.
State v. Honeycutt 44 So. 2d 313 La. 1950
(on rehearing), is pertinent here, that is: “ * * * We think that after the accused testified in detail about the mistreatment he received and the inducements offered him at the time he confessed, the jailer should have been recalled and reexamined with respect to the particulars testified to by th
State v. Simpson 43 So. 2d 585 La. 1949
State v. Wilson, 214 La.