Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Swails, 66 So. 2d 796.

15 citing documents.

State v. Howard 258 So. 3d 66 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
App. 1st Cir. 9/25/98), , 16 (citing official comment (b) to Article 641 and State v. Swails , , 762-63, , 800 (1953) ).
State v. Fugler 721 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
P. art. 641, particularly, official comment (b) thereto, , (1953).
State v. Dixon 668 So. 2d 388 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
-63 , -800 (1953), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated in dicta that amnesia may render a defendant incapable of assisting in his defense: [TJheir principal contention on this appeal is that the trial judge erred in concluding that appellant was able to assist in his defense, in view of the report
State v. Gray 385 So. 2d 782 La. 1980
State v. Daigle, La., ; State v. Veal, La., ; State v. Gray, La., .
State v. Daigle 344 So. 2d 1380 La. 1977
NOTES [1] In this regard, however, , (1953) and stated that the very fact that appellant does not remember anything concerning his alleged criminal acts may be of material aid to his counsel in their presentation of case of insanity.
State v. Veal 326 So. 2d 329 La. 1976
(1953): "`This contention would be very forceful and persuasive were this a prosecution in which the accused was pleading not guilty for, in such case, his inability to inform his counsel of any of the facts regarding his own movements in relation to the charges against him would materially affect him i
State v. Flores 315 So. 2d 772 La. 1975
186 , (1959); , (1953); State v. Boice, 153 La.
State v. Gray 291 So. 2d 390 La. 1974
(1953) this Court addressed itself to an identical defense, saying: "This contention would be very forceful and persuasive were this a prosecution in which the accused was pleading not guilty for, in such case, his inability to inform his counsel of any of the facts regarding his own movements in relati
State v. Hampton 218 So. 2d 311 La. 1969
State v. Augustine 215 So. 2d 634 La. 1968
State v. Plaisance 210 So. 2d 323 La. 1968
*219 , , wherein this court observed, “The apprehension and even the predictions of some physicians that appellant may be a menace to society, if he is ever released, affords no basis whatever for holding him presently insane, within the meaning of the law,” pointing out further, “The statute is founded on the
Overruled State v. Burrows 198 So. 2d 393 La. 1967
State v. Yaun 110 So. 2d 573 La. 1959
“ , , is believed pertinent to the issue under consideration : “ ‘The test of present insanity, which will prevent a trial in a criminal action is whether the person is mentally competent to make a rational defense.
State v. Swails 76 So. 2d 523 La. 1954
State v. Riviere 72 So. 2d 316 La. 1954