State v. Hughes

7 Citing cases

  1. State v. Jones

    283 So. 2d 476 (La. 1973)   Cited 9 times
    In State v. Jones, 283 So.2d 476 (La. 1973), however, we noted that "mug shots" connote a criminal record and create a prejudicial effect upon the jury.

    The jurisprudence supports the admission of the photographs. See State v. Hall, 261 La. 777, 260 So.2d 913 (1972); State v. Harris, 258 La. 720, 247 So.2d 847 (1971); State v. Hopper, 251 La. 77, 203 So.2d 222 (1967) judg. vacated on other grounds, 392 U.S. 658, 88 S.Ct. 2281, 20 L. Ed.2d 1347 (1968); State v. Hughes, 244 La. 774, 154 So.2d 395 (1963); State v. Pollard, Mo., 447 S.W.2d 249 (1969). For the reasons assigned, I respectfully dissent.

  2. State v. Morris

    259 La. 1001 (La. 1971)   Cited 14 times
    In Morris, during the trial, counsel for the defense moved that defendant, a Negro, be permitted to sit outside the rail with the spectators in anticipation that a state witness would be called to identify him.

    It is a rule of long standing in this State that the ruling of a trial judge upon the admissibility of a confession based upon his conclusion that such confession was not obtained by threats or promises where there is a conflict of testimony will not be disturbed by this Court unless clearly not supported by this evidence. State v. Johnson, 249 La. 950, 192 So.2d 135 (1966); State v. Hughes, 244 La. 774, 154 So.2d 395 (1963); State v. Bueche, 243 La. 160, 142 So.2d 381 (1962). Bill No. 16

  3. State v. Hall

    257 La. 253 (La. 1970)   Cited 46 times

    Such a factual determination by the trial judge is given great weight and will not be disturbed upon appeal unless clearly erroneous. State v. Lacoste, 256 La. 697, 237 So.2d 871 (1970); State v. Johnson, 249 La. 950, 192 So.2d 135 (1966); State v. Hughes, 244 La. 774, 154 So.2d 395 (1963); State v. Domino, 234 La. 950, 102 So.2d 227 (1958). For similar reasons we reject the codefendant Hall's identical bills of exception.

  4. State v. Hopper

    251 La. 77 (La. 1967)   Cited 20 times
    In State v. Hopper, 251 La. 77, 203 So.2d 222 (1967), the court found in applying this article's predecessor provisions that a delay of twelve hours between arrest and booking did not violate those statutes.

    Neither the testimony of the coroner nor the admission in evidence of the pictures violated defendant's constitutional privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. * * *" State v. Hughes, 244 La. 774, 154 So.2d 395. We do not find that the trial judge abused his discretion by admitting the mug shots in evidence.

  5. State v. Gregoire

    249 La. 890 (La. 1966)   Cited 8 times
    Rehearing denied December 12, 1966

    The question of the admissibility of the verbal declaration addressed itself to the trial judge, and his ruling will not be disturbed unless it is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. State v. Peart, 232 La. 111, 93 So.2d 920; State v. Cook, 215 La. 163, 39 So.2d 898; State v. Walker, 229 La. 229, 85 So.2d 497; State v. Scott, 243 La. 1,141 So.2d 389; State v. Hughes, 244 La. 774, 154 So.2d 395. We do not find that the trial judge erred in admitting into evidence the alleged verbal declaration and ruling that it was given freely and voluntarily.

  6. State v. Evans

    192 So. 2d 103 (La. 1966)   Cited 35 times
    Rehearing denied December 12, 1966

    It is well settled that "The conclusion of the trial judge on the conflict of the testimony involves only a question of fact and should not be disturbed unless it is not supported by the evidence." State v. Hughes, 244 La. 774, 154 So.2d 395 and the numerous cases cited therein. Our review of the record here convinces us that the trial judge properly weighed the evidence, and we find that it amply supports his conclusion that the confessions were freely and voluntarily made without any threats, promises or inducements.

  7. State v. James

    246 La. 1033 (La. 1964)   Cited 8 times

    This testimony was neither compulsive nor self-incriminating. State v. Hughes, 244 La. 774, 154 So.2d 395; State v. Robinson, 221 La. 19, 58 So.2d 408. Bills of Exceptions Nos. 3 and 14 are without merit.