State v. Mitchell

11 Citing cases

  1. State v. Tallie

    337 So. 2d 504 (La. 1976)   Cited 6 times
    In State v. Tallie, 337 So.2d 504 (La. 1976), the Court noted: "[e]ven indirect reference by a prosecutor to an unrelated crime alleged to have been committed by the accused, is regarded as so prejudicial to an accused as to mandate mistrial."

    The trial court correctly ruled that, at the trial on the merits of innocence or guilt, no issue relevant to this case was raised by the probable-cause reasons for the defendant's initial arrest or for the admission into evidence of physical evidence previously ruled admissible at a hearing on a motion to suppress it. See, e.g., State v. Mitchell, 278 So.2d 48 (La. 1973). Despite the accused's complaint, we further find no prejudice caused him by the rulings.

  2. State v. Bouffanie

    364 So. 2d 971 (La. 1978)   Cited 22 times
    In State v. Bouffanie, 364 So.2d 971 (La. 1978) and State v. Williams, 385 So.2d 214 (La. 1980), we applied the procedure and burden of proof governing challenges to the truthfulness of factual statements in a search warrant affidavit, see Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), to challenges to search warrants based in necessary part upon an alleged illegal confession, and held that the defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the confession used to obtain the search warrant was involuntary.

    See, Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 89 S. Ct. 961, 983, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969) (Fortas, J., concurring). Accord: State v. Mitchell, 278 So.2d 48 (La. 1973). But see, Massachusetts v. White, 371 N.E.2d 377 (1978), cert. granted, 436 U.S. 925, 98 S.Ct. 2817, 56 L.Ed.2d 767, 1978.

  3. State v. Robinson

    353 So. 2d 1001 (La. 1978)   Cited 9 times

    "It is a well-settled rule that a photograph need not be identified by the person who took it to be admissible in evidence. State v. Browning, 290 So.2d 322 (La. 1974); State v. Mitchell, 278 So.2d 48 (La. 1973); State v. Fox, 251 La. 464, 205 So.2d 42 (1967). Generally, photographs are admissible in evidence when they are shown to have been accurately taken, to be a correct representation of the subject in controversy and when they tend to shed light upon the matter before the court.

  4. State v. Forbes

    348 So. 2d 983 (La. 1977)   Cited 13 times
    In Forbes, the Louisiana Supreme Court found no abuse of discretion in a trial court's refusal to declare a mistrial when a juror had twice answered negatively when his panel had been asked whether any of them were related to a law enforcement agent, but it was subsequently learned that the juror had one son who was a city policeman and another who was a deputy sheriff.

    "It is a well-settled rule that a photograph need not be identified by the person who took it to be admissible in evidence. State v. Browning, 290 So.2d 322 (La. 1974); State v. Mitchell, 278 So.2d 48 (La. 1973); State v. Fox, 251 La. 464, 205 So.2d 42 (1967). Generally, photographs are admissible in evidence when they are shown to have been accurately taken, to be a correct representation of the subject in controversy and when they tend to shed light upon the matter before the court.

  5. State v. Simms

    341 So. 2d 874 (La. 1977)   Cited 2 times

    The totality of the circumstances belie the contention that any impermissible suggestion occurred here. State v. Mitchell, 278 So.2d 48 (La. 1973); State v. Junius, 257 La. 331, 242 So.2d 533 (1971). The second defense complaint arose from an incident which occurred during the trial.

  6. State v. Freetime

    334 So. 2d 207 (La. 1976)   Cited 32 times

    It is a well-settled rule that a photograph need not be identified by the person who took it to be admissible in evidence. State v. Browning, 290 So.2d 322 (La. 1974); State v. Mitchell, 278 So.2d 48 (La. 1973); State v. Fox, 251 La. 464, 205 So.2d 42 (1967). Generally, photographs are admissible in evidence when they are shown to have been accurately taken, to be a correct representation of the subject in controversy and when they tend to shed light upon the matter before the court.

  7. State v. Davalie

    313 So. 2d 587 (La. 1975)   Cited 21 times

    The additional penalty is for the offense for which the accused has more recently been tried and convicted with the full panoply of due process. State v. Mitchell, 278 So.2d 48 (La. 1973); State v. Vale, 252 La. 1056, 215 So.2d 811 (1968); State v. Hingle, 242 La. 844, 139 So.2d 205 (1962); State v. Roy, 219 La. 97, 52 So.2d 299 (1951); State v. O'Day, 191 La. 380, 185 So. 290 (1937). This decision based on the requirement of due process in this multiple offender hearing is therefore misplaced.

  8. State v. Forbes

    310 So. 2d 569 (La. 1975)   Cited 21 times

    This court has consistently held that it is not necessary to have the photographer testify about a picture before it can be introduced into evidence if the object pictured is properly identified by another witness. State v. Mitchell, 278 So.2d 48 (La. 1973); State v. Chambers, 263 La. 1080, 270 So.2d 514 (1972) and authorities therein cited. This assignment of error is without merit.

  9. State v. Rhodes

    308 So. 2d 770 (La. 1975)   Cited 10 times
    In State v. Rhodes, 308 So.2d 770, 1975, the Louisiana Supreme Court reiterated its holding in Dotson, emphasizing that the burden is on the defendant to show exceptional circumstances warranting disclosure.

    The issue here is whether the photographic identification procedure utilized was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a substantial likelihood of misidentification. State v. Mitchell, La., 278 So.2d 48 (1973). In determining whether an identification procedure is impermissibly suggestive, reference must be made to all the circumstances.

  10. State v. Peters

    298 So. 2d 276 (La. 1974)   Cited 11 times

    State v. Fox, 251 La. 464, 205 So.2d 42 (1967). Recently, in State v. Mitchell, La., 278 So.2d 48, we rejected an identical contention, holding: "As noted by the trial judge in his per curiam, it is not necessary that a picture be verified by the photographer in order for it to be offered into evidence."