Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Crook, 221 So. 2d 473.

46 citing documents.

State v. Payton 496 So. 2d 1068 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
State v. Johnson 442 So. 2d 719 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
cruel, excessive, or unusual punishment.” Excessive punishment in Louisiana has been defined by Louisiana courts, as , (1969), as that which is: ...
State v. Johnson 439 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
cruel, excessive, or unusual punishment.” Excessive punishment in Louisiana has been defined by Louisiana courts, as , (1969), as that which is: [b]arbarous[,] extraordinary, or grossly disproportionate to the offense.
State v. Morgan 439 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
cruel, excessive, or unusual punishment.” Excessive punishment in Louisiana has been defined by Louisiana courts, , (1969), as that which is: [b]arbarous[,] extraordinary, or grossly disproportionate to the offense.
State v. Thomas 432 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Jackson 432 So. 2d 360 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Williams 431 So. 2d 98 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Acliese 403 So. 2d 665 La. 1981
For the dangers of this sort of rule, however, , (1969), decided before State v. Prieur, supra, and State v. Moore, supra.
Watts v. Phelps 377 So. 2d 1317 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
(1969); State v. Miller, 263 La.
State v. Arnold 367 So. 2d 324 La. 1979
State v. Brown 322 So. 2d 211 La. 1975
State v. Washington 321 So. 2d 763 La. 1975
See State v. Selman, supra; , (1969); 21 Am.
State v. Washington 321 So. 2d 763 La. 1975
See State v. Selman, supra; , (1969); 21 Am.
State v. Dillard 320 So. 2d 116 La. 1975
State v. Roberts 319 So. 2d 317 La. 1975
See State v. Selman, supra; , (1969); 21 Am.Jur.2d, Criminal Law, § 613, p. 563.
State v. Stetson 317 So. 2d 172 La. 1975
State v. Bradford 298 So. 2d 781 La. 1974
State v. Hill 297 So. 2d 660 La. 1974
See State v. Selman, supra; , (1969); 21 Am.Jur.2d, Criminal Law, § 613, p. 563.
State v. Selman 300 So. 2d 467 La. 1974
State v. Normand 285 So. 2d 210 La. 1973
State v. Moore 278 So. 2d 781 La. 1973
(1969); State v. Hills, 259 La.
State v. Frezal 278 So. 2d 64 La. 1973
State v. Prieur 277 So. 2d 126 La. 1973
(1969), with Justice Barham dissenting; State v. Bolden, 257 La.
State v. Jordan 276 So. 2d 277 La. 1973
61 , (1969); , (1969); State v. Lawrence, 251 La.
State v. Neal 275 So. 2d 765 La. 1973
State v. Edgecombe 275 So. 2d 740 La. 1973
State v. Washington 272 So. 2d 355 La. 1973
State v. Washington 272 So. 2d 355 La. 1973
State v. Curry 270 So. 2d 484 La. 1972
(1969), we concluded, in disposing of a similar plea involving aggravated rape, that the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment refers to those punishments that are “barbarous” and “extraordinary” and shock the conscience of civilized man; that electrocution is a common method
State v. Jones 270 So. 2d 489 La. 1972
(1969), this Court stated: “The motion to quash also attacks the constitutionality of the death sentence for aggravated rape.
State v. Miller 269 So. 2d 829 La. 1972
In short, the constitutional prohibition is directed to punishments that shock the conscience of civilized men.” , (1969).
State v. Howard 263 So. 2d 32 La. 1972
State v. Whitsell 262 So. 2d 509 La. 1972
15:445 and 15:446; , (1969), and cases cited therein.
State v. Myers 259 So. 2d 27 La. 1972
State v. Dimopoullas 257 So. 2d 644 La. 1972
State v. Pebworth 257 So. 2d 136 La. 1972
In short, the constitutional prohibition is directed to punishments that shock the conscience of civilized men.” , (1969).
State v. Morris 254 So. 2d 444 La. 1971
State v. Cripps 250 So. 2d 382 La. 1971
(1969), we concluded, in disposing of a similar plea involving aggravated rape, that the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment refers to those punishments that are “barbarous” and “extraordinary” and shock the conscience of civilized man; that electrocution is a common method
State v. Smith 250 So. 2d 724 La. 1971
The argument of the State to support the admission of the evidence of the other offenses here, and the argument of the defense to suppress the evidence of the other offenses, , 221 So.
State v. Coney 246 So. 2d 793 La. 1971
61 , ; , ; State v. Hall, 253 La.
State v. Square 244 So. 2d 200 La. 1971
(1969); State v. Hunter, 250 La.
State v. Bolden 241 So. 2d 490 La. 1970
State v. Fink 231 So. 2d 360 La. 1970
2d 857 ; , ; State v. Hall, 253 La.
State v. Williams 229 So. 2d 706 La. 1969
State v. Billiot 229 So. 2d 72 La. 1969
(1969), we stated: “Cruel and unusual punishments are those that are barbarous, extraordinary, or grossly disproportionate to the offense.
State v. Anderson 229 So. 2d 329 La. 1969