Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Straughan, 87 So. 2d 523.

23 citing documents.

State v. Jackson 916 So. 2d 1015 La. 2005
State v. Griffin 495 So. 2d 1306 La. 1986
State v. Gainey 376 So. 2d 1240 La. 1979
State v. James 305 So. 2d 514 La. 1974
560 , (1971); , (1956); , 734 at 737-739 (La.1973).
State v. Russell 292 So. 2d 681 La. 1974
State v. Clark 288 So. 2d 612 La. 1974
An important decision, , (1956), which invalidated as unconstitutional legislation designed to permit charging by name and article number of the offense, discusses the traditional reasons of fundamental safeguard of individual rights underlying this extremely technical line of jurisprudence.
State v. Edwards 287 So. 2d 518 La. 1973
State v. Smith 275 So. 2d 733 La. 1973
An important decision, , (1956), which invalidated as unconstitutional legislation designed to permit charging by name and article number of the offense, discusses the traditional reasons of fundamental safeguard of individual rights underlying this extremely technical line of jurisprudence.
State v. Spina 259 So. 2d 891 La. 1972
State v. Thomas 257 So. 2d 406 La. 1972
State v. Square 244 So. 2d 200 La. 1971
In Louisiana we have referred to the constitutional guarantee of due process of law as that which “preserves those enduring principles enunciated in our Bill of Rights, and the preservation of those basic rights termed as inalienable in our Declaration of Independence.” , (1956).
State v. Fontenot 235 So. 2d 75 La. 1970
and State v. Smith, 243 La.
State v. Cooper 190 So. 2d 86 La. 1966
Defendant nevertheless renews the argument considered by us before, , (1956) supports the contention that the short form of indictment is unconstitutional.
State v. Moody 173 So. 2d 195 La. 1965
decided by this court in 1956, and they contend that the reasoning and authorities cited in that case support their position here.
State v. McAllister 150 So. 2d 557 La. 1963
Defendant herein argues, however, , , this Court recognized that the specific short forms were not sufficient in all instances ; 3 he urges insufficiency in the indictment.
State v. Smith 146 So. 2d 152 La. 1962
15:235), permitting the use of the short form in the drafting of accusations in certain well-understood and well-defined crimes, and that portion of this article authorizing the charging of a defendant by using only “the name and article number” of the offense has been declared null and without effect ( , ), it remains for us to determine whether the information in the instant case conforms to the requirements of Article 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (R.S.
State v. Eyer 110 So. 2d 521 La. 1959
State v. Scott 110 So. 2d 530 La. 1959
960 , ; , and State v. McQueen, 230 La.
Distinguished State v. Kershaw 100 So. 2d 873 La. 1958
670 , ; , — are easily distinguishable from both a legal and factual standpoint and, therefore, inapposite.
State v. Elias 99 So. 2d 1 La. 1958
55 , ; , and State v. Ledent, 230 La.
State v. Broussard 98 So. 2d 218 La. 1957
State v. Green 93 So. 2d 657 La. 1957
1082 , , , relied on by counsel for appellant are not apposite as, here, we find that the statute expresses, without uncertainty or ambiguity, the acts constituting the offense, and therefore, a charge couched in the language thereof is sufficient.
State v. Ledent 89 So. 2d 299 La. 1956
See State v. McQueen, La., ; , .