Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Faciane, 99 So. 2d 333.

27 citing documents.

State of Louisiana Versus Carlos Washington La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
“Once the commission’s investigation as to the sanity of the accused has been completed, the only duty imposed upon its members by the statute is that ‘They shall within thirty days make their reports in writing to the presiding judge.’” Gray, 248 So.2d at 318, (La.
State v. Henderson 566 So. 2d 1098 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
(1958), which actually antedates the current Code of Criminal Procedure.
State v. Tennant 352 So. 2d 629 La. 1977
State v. Domangue 350 So. 2d 599 La. 1977
official revision comment; , (1957).
State v. Bell 315 So. 2d 307 La. 1975
" , (1958), and cases cited therein.
State v. Bastida 310 So. 2d 629 La. 1975
(1958), this Court held: "There is nothing in the statute requiring that an accused be kept under constant observation for any fixed period of time, and the legislature has not therein attempted to dictate to these experts the manner and method to be employed by them in conducting their examination
State v. Conrad 304 So. 2d 318 La. 1974
(1958); State v. Peltier, 229 La.
State v. Frierson 302 So. 2d 605 La. 1974
State v. Baker 288 So. 2d 52 La. 1973
State v. Gray 248 So. 2d 313 La. 1971
* * * ” The Official Revision Comment under Article 644 states, in part, “(b) The type of examination and procedures to be followed will be determined by the sanity commission, subject to such general directions as the court may include in the order for examination.” , (1958), this Court held: “There is nothing in the statute requiring that an accused be kept under constant observation for any fixed period of time, and the legislature has not therein attempted to dictate to these experts the man
State v. Poland 232 So. 2d 499 La. 1970
Article 622 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure; , ; and State v. Lejeune, supra, and the authorities therein cited.
State v. Anderson 229 So. 2d 329 La. 1969
State v. Roshto, 222 La.
State v. Page 206 So. 2d 503 La. 1968
State v. Page 206 So. 2d 503 La. 1968
State v. Hopper 203 So. 2d 222 La. 1967
Article 316 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 7 * * , ; State v. Mack, 243 La.
State v. Williams 193 So. 2d 787 La. 1967
State v. Montgomery 181 So. 2d 756 La. 1966
State v. Rideau, 246 La.
State v. Lejeune 181 So. 2d 392 La. 1965
15:293, , , and authorities cited therein.
State v. Hughes 154 So. 2d 395 La. 1963
*785 ; State v. Augustine, 241 La.
State v. MacK 144 So. 2d 363 La. 1962
State v. Scott 141 So. 2d 389 La. 1962
State v. Rideau 137 So. 2d 283 La. 1962
State v. Rogers 132 So. 2d 819 La. 1961
State v. Augustine 131 So. 2d 56 La. 1961
* * * ” With respect to the sufficiency of these examinations and the objection made by learned counsel for defendant on the basis of his contention that they were cursory and inadequate, , , is particularly pertinent.
State v. Wilson 127 So. 2d 158 La. 1961
State v. Bickham 121 So. 2d 207 La. 1960
State v. Scott 110 So. 2d 530 La. 1959
400 , and authorities there cited.