Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Chinn, 87 So. 2d 315.

30 citing documents.

State of Louisiana Versus Carlos Washington La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana v. Jason Ray Craft La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
707, (1971) ( So.2d 315 (1955); State v. Brodes, 160 La.
State v. Prudhomme 819 So. 2d 443 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
State v. Bourque 636 So. 2d 254 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
The defendant in Ketchens argued that the state's failure to object to the order appointing a sanity commission precluded it from later objecting at trial; yet, , (1956), and pursuant to LSA-C.Cr.P.
State v. Ketchens 552 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Defendant finds support for this argument in some of the court’s , (1956).
State v. Poree 386 So. 2d 1331 La. 1980
State v. Washington 321 So. 2d 763 La. 1975
State v. Washington 321 So. 2d 763 La. 1975
State v. Jones 270 So. 2d 489 La. 1972
State v. Square 244 So. 2d 200 La. 1971
The State’s , (1956), to support its position on this bill is misplaced.
State v. Edwards 243 So. 2d 806 La. 1971
State v. Brodes, 160 La.
State v. Callihan 242 So. 2d 521 La. 1970
State v. Hall 218 So. 2d 320 La. 1969
821 , ; , ; and State v. Cloud, 246 La.
State v. Hampton 218 So. 2d 311 La. 1969
1589 , 8 L.Ed.2d 830 ; , ; State v. Genna, 163 La.
State v. Augustine 215 So. 2d 634 La. 1968
State v. Brodes, 160 La.
State v. Plaisance 210 So. 2d 323 La. 1968
We, therefore, , , “To warrant the sustaining of a plea of present insanity, thereby preventing the trial of a criminal action, it must appear by a preponderance of evidence that the accused is so mentally deficient that he lacks capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him and to assist i
State v. Gregoire 192 So. 2d 114 La. 1966
State v. Jenkins, 236 La.
State v. Whisenant 175 So. 2d 293 La. 1965
State v. Fulghum 138 So. 2d 569 La. 1962
1036 , , and authorities cited and quoted therein; , ), and this was repeatedly stated to the jury by the trial judge.
State v. Collins 138 So. 2d 546 La. 1962
imony of Dr. Sturm but by testimony of Dr. Sabatier, the second member of the lunacy commission, both having given as their unqualified opinion that the defendant was thoroughly capable of understanding the nature of court proceedings, could recall past incidents, and was able to assist in his defense — this being the true *721 test in determining the present sanity of an accused ( , ).
State v. Ricks 138 So. 2d 589 La. 1962
On the contrary, he [the accused] is required to prove his insanity by a fair preponderance of the evidence.” , is full authority for the quoted reasons.
State v. Davis 132 So. 2d 866 La. 1961
and State v. Sauls, 226 La.
State v. Wilson 127 So. 2d 158 La. 1961
State v. Eubanks 124 So. 2d 543 La. 1960
As Your Honors have said in State v. Chinn [ ] at Page 320: “ ‘However, according to the universally accepted jurisprudence, mere weakness of mentality or subnormal intelligence does not, of itself, constitute legal insanity.’ ” After reading the testimony adduced both by the State and by the defense on the subject of defendant’s mentality, we are i
State v. Stewart 117 So. 2d 583 La. 1960
If, on the whole, considering all of the evidence as to his mental condition, there is a preponderance of proof in favor of insanity of a character to render the defendant irresponsible, then the accused should be acquitted; if not and the proof otherwise convinces the jury of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, he should be convicted.” , , holding that insanity at the time of the commission of the offense must be established by the accused by a preponderance of the evidence.
State v. Yaun 110 So. 2d 573 La. 1959
“ , , which held to the effect that low mentality is not synonymous with insanity.
State v. Jenkins 107 So. 2d 632 La. 1958
114, 119 , , , , 320 “to warrant *264 -thé sustaining of a plea of present insanity, •thereby preventing trial of a criminal action, "it must appear by a preponderance of evidence that the accused is so mentally deficient that he lacks capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him and to
State v. Faciane 99 So. 2d 333 La. 1957
State v. Bailey 96 So. 2d 34 La. 1957
State v. Harris 95 So. 2d 496 La. 1957