16 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Oregon v. Elstadgreen2 sentences2003See Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 , 105 S.Ct. 1285 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985). 2003See Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 , 105 S.Ct. 1285 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Foretgreen2 sentences2023State v. Foret, 96-281, p. 29 (La .App. 5 Cir. 11/14/96), 685 So. 2d 210 , (citing State v. Thompson, 399 So. 2d 1161 (La.1981)). 2017App. 5 Cir. 11/14/96), 685 So.2d 210, 222 (citing State v. Thompson, 399 So.2d 1161 (La.1981)). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Lassaigreen2 sentences2002State v. Lassai, 366 So.2d 1389, 1390 (La. 1978), citing United States v. Johnson, 455 F.2d 932 (5th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 856 , 93 S.Ct 136 , 34 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). 1981In State v. Lassai, 366 So.2d 1389 (La.1978), we held that a defendant's admissions to his probation officer were properly admitted in spite of the absence of Miranda warning. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Colemangreen1 sentence2017Code Crim.P, art. 703(D); see also State v. Coleman, 07-794 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/6/08) , 976 So.2d 268 . “[Spontaneous and voluntary statements not made as a result of police interrogation or compelling influence are admissible in the absence of Miranda warnings even if the accused is in custody.” State v. Foret, 96-281, p. 29 (La. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Edwardsgreen1 sentence2002See also State v. Edwards, 440 So.2d 845 (La.App. 2 Cir.1983) (holding that a probationer's admissions to a probation officer are admissible at a revocation hearing in spite of the absence of Miranda warnings). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cagegreen2 sentences2002See State v. Cage, 583 So.2d 1125 (La.1991). [6] Those safeguards, commonly known as the Miranda warnings, are as follows: "Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed." Id. [7] This court has held that a defendant's statement made to his probation officer was properly admitted by the trial judge despite the absence of Miranda warnings. 2002See State v. Cage, 583 So.2d 1125 (La.1991). [6] Those safeguards, commonly known as the Miranda warnings, are as follows: "Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed." Id. [7] This court has held that a defendant's statement made to his probation officer was properly admitted by the trial judge despite the absence of Miranda warnings. | 1 | 1 |
Miranda v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2000Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 477 , 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1629 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) ("General on-the-scene questioning as to facts surrounding a crime or other general questioning of citizens in the fact-finding process is not affected by our holding."). 2000Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 477 , 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1629 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) ("General on-the-scene questioning as to facts surrounding a crime or other general questioning of citizens in the fact-finding process is not affected by our holding."). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences1978United States v. Johnson, 455 F.2d 932 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. den. 409 U.S. 856 , 93 S.Ct. 136 , 34 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972); accord, State of Washington v. Johnson, 9 Wash.App. 766 , 514 P.2d 1073 (1973). 1978United States v. Johnson, 455 F.2d 932 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. den. 409 U.S. 856 , 93 S.Ct. 136 , 34 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972); accord, State of Washington v. Johnson, 9 Wash.App. 766 , 514 P.2d 1073 (1973). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Thompson
green
2 sentences2023State v. Foret, 96-281, p. 29 (La .App. 5 Cir. 11/14/96), 685 So. 2d 210 , (citing State v. Thompson, 399 So. 2d 1161 (La.1981)). 2017App. 5 Cir. 11/14/96), 685 So.2d 210, 222 (citing State v. Thompson, 399 So.2d 1161 (La.1981)). | 3 | 1996–2023 |
State v. Robinson
green
2 sentences1992State v. Robinson, supra ; State v. Lambertus, 482 So.2d 812 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986). 1986State v. Smith, 407 So.2d 652 (La.1981); State v. Robinson, 384 So.2d 332 (La.1980). | 3 | 1984–1992 |
Nix v. Williams
green
2 sentences2008Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444 , 104 S.Ct. 2501, 2509 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984). 2008Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444 , 104 S.Ct. 2501, 2509 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984). | 2 | 2000–2008 |
Mathis v. United States
green
2 sentences2003The court stated: Even assuming that the detective’s initial questions ranged beyond an internal prison disciplinary proceeding to the investigation of a criminal offense, that the defendant was therefore “in custody” for Miranda purposes, see Mathis v. United States, 391 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1503 , 20 L.Ed.2d 381 (1968), that the absence of Miranda warnings tainted his initial responses, and that his initial statements were of an equal inculpatory cast as his subsequent confession, the defendant’s voluntary statements made after he received his Miranda warnings remain admissible at trial. 2003The court stated: Even assuming that the detective’s initial questions ranged beyond an internal prison disciplinary proceeding to the investigation of a criminal offense, that the defendant was therefore “in custody” for Miranda purposes, see Mathis v. United States, 391 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1503 , 20 L.Ed.2d 381 (1968), that the absence of Miranda warnings tainted his initial responses, and that his initial statements were of an equal inculpatory cast as his subsequent confession, the defendant’s voluntary statements made after he received his Miranda warnings remain admissible at trial. | 2 | 1997–2003 |
United States v. Tollie Johnson
green
2 sentences2002State v. Lassai, 366 So.2d 1389, 1390 (La. 1978), citing United States v. Johnson, 455 F.2d 932 (5th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 856 , 93 S.Ct 136 , 34 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). 1978United States v. Johnson, 455 F.2d 932 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. den. 409 U.S. 856 , 93 S.Ct. 136 , 34 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972); accord, State of Washington v. Johnson, 9 Wash.App. 766 , 514 P.2d 1073 (1973). | 2 | 1978–2002 |
Rhodes v. Haynes
green
2 sentences2002State v. Lassai, 366 So.2d 1389, 1390 (La. 1978), citing United States v. Johnson, 455 F.2d 932 (5th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 856 , 93 S.Ct 136 , 34 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). 1978United States v. Johnson, 455 F.2d 932 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. den. 409 U.S. 856 , 93 S.Ct. 136 , 34 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972); accord, State of Washington v. Johnson, 9 Wash.App. 766 , 514 P.2d 1073 (1973). | 2 | 1978–2002 |
Hampton v. United States
green
2 sentences2002State v. Lassai, 366 So.2d 1389, 1390 (La. 1978), citing United States v. Johnson, 455 F.2d 932 (5th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 856 , 93 S.Ct 136 , 34 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). 1978United States v. Johnson, 455 F.2d 932 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. den. 409 U.S. 856 , 93 S.Ct. 136 , 34 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972); accord, State of Washington v. Johnson, 9 Wash.App. 766 , 514 P.2d 1073 (1973). | 2 | 1978–2002 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences1986State v. Smith, 407 So.2d 652 (La.1981); State v. Robinson, 384 So.2d 332 (La.1980). 1984State v. Smith, 407 So.2d 652 (La.1981); State v. Robinson, 384 So.2d 332 (La.1980); State v. George, 371 So.2d 762 (La.1979). | 2 | 1984–1986 |
New York v. Quarles
green
1 sentence2025Id. at 655- 60, 104 S.Ct. at 2631-33. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Missouri v. Seibert
green
2 sentences2015On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting his recorded statement because “the illegality of the written statement served to undermine the voluntariness of the subsequently obtained recorded statement.” In support of this argument, defendant relies on the United States Supreme Court case, Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 , 124 S.Ct. 2601 , 159 L.Ed.2d 643 (2004), in which the Supreme Court was confronted with a similar factual scenario where the suspect provided a confession in the absence of Miranda warnings, was advised of her Miranda rights, and then repeated her c 2015On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting his recorded statement because “the illegality of the written statement served to undermine the voluntariness of the subsequently obtained recorded statement.” In support of this argument, defendant relies on the United States Supreme Court case, Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 , 124 S.Ct. 2601 , 159 L.Ed.2d 643 (2004), in which the Supreme Court was confronted with a similar factual scenario where the suspect provided a confession in the absence of Miranda warnings, was advised of her Miranda rights, and then repeated her c | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Cowan
green
1 sentence2002Id. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Lambertus
green
1 sentence1992State v. Robinson, supra ; State v. Lambertus, 482 So.2d 812 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State v. George
green
1 sentence1984State v. Smith, 407 So.2d 652 (La.1981); State v. Robinson, 384 So.2d 332 (La.1980); State v. George, 371 So.2d 762 (La.1979). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.