Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite City of Baton Rouge v. Norman, 290 So. 2d 865.

48 citing documents.

The Cartesian Company, Inc. and Greg Gachassin v. the Division of Administrative Law Ethics Adjudicatory Board Panel a … La. 2023
State of Louisiana v. Michael Calvin Duhon -Aka- Michael C. Duhon -Aka- Michael Duhon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
State v. Sandifer, 95-2226, p. 10 (La.9/5/96), -32 ().
State of Louisiana v. Terry James Goodeaux -Aka- Terry Goodeaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
r. 5/10/02), the first circuit described “substance” for the purpose of amending an indictment after trial had commenced, as follows: “A „defect of substance‟ as contemplated by Article 487 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is intended to mean a defect which will work to the prejudice of the party accused.” (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Robert W. Bell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
3 Cir. 1985), writ denied, ().
State v. Bell 106 So. 3d 295 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
3 Cir.1985), writ denied, ().
Town of St. Joseph v. Webb 87 So. 3d 958 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
State v. Lewis 69 So. 3d 604 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. MUMME 29 So. 3d 685 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
The Louisiana Supreme Court explained what is meant in Article 487 by a “defect of substance,” : A ‘defect of substance’ as contemplated by Article 487 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is intended to mean a defect which will work to the prejudice of the party accused.
State v. Lee 888 So. 2d 305 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
State v. Offord, 95-290 (La.App.
State v. Interiano 868 So. 2d 9 La. 2004
Smith v. Goguen, supra ; State v. Union Tank Car Company, supra
State v. Delandro 818 So. 2d 1011 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
State v. Hair 784 So. 2d 1269 La. 2001
State v. Sandifer, 95-2226, p. 10 (La.9/5/96), -32 ( ).
State v. Palermo 765 So. 2d 1155 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Palermo 765 So. 2d 1139 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
Jefferson Downs Corp. v. Louisiana State Racing Commission 727 So. 2d 644 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
State v. Sandifer 679 So. 2d 1324 La. 1996
La. Paddlewheels v. La. Riverboat Gaming 646 So. 2d 885 La. 1994
State v. Alpaugh 568 So. 2d 1379 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State in Interest of JAV 558 So. 2d 214 La. 1990
State v. Barthelemy, supra ; State v. Union Tank Car Co., *216 -86 (La.1983)
State v. Conway 556 So. 2d 1323 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
State v. Lambert 514 So. 2d 550 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Likewise, the requirement of adequate standards for ascertaining guilt mandates that a criminal statute mark boundaries ‘sufficiently distinct for judges and juries to administer the law in accordance with the legislative will.’
Distinguished State v. Bass 509 So. 2d 176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
[3] from the instant case because the theft ordinance therein only proscribed one grade of the offense of theft.
State v. Encalade 505 So. 2d 87 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Gisclair, supra
State v. Harris 478 So. 2d 229 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
“A ‘defect of substance’ as corn templated by Article 487 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is intended to mean a defect which will work to the prejudice of the party accused.”
State v. Cuevas 466 So. 2d 559 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
in which the Supreme Court held a statute very similar to the instant one constitutional.
State v. Robertson 464 So. 2d 760 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Jackson 460 So. 2d 1183 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
and authorities therein.
State v. David 468 So. 2d 1126 La. 1984
Smith v. Goguen, supra; State v. Union Tank Car Company, supra
State v. Union Tank Car Co. 439 So. 2d 377 La. 1983
State v. Pearaa 403 So. 2d 1194 La. 1981
constitutional guarantees of procedural due process and the right to a fair trial embodied in Article 1, § 16 of the Louisiana Constitution also require that a criminal enactment contain an ascertainable standard of guilt and that it “mark[s] boundaries sufficiently *1198 distinct for judges and juries to administer the law in accordance with the legislative will.”
State v. Turner 392 So. 2d 436 La. 1980
State v. McCoy 395 So. 2d 319 La. 1980
State v. Cannon 383 So. 2d 389 La. 1980
State v. Dousay 378 So. 2d 414 La. 1979
State v. Gisclair 363 So. 2d 696 La. 1978
State v. Heck, supra ; (La.
State v. Williams 359 So. 2d 115 La. 1978
for the proposition that the unconstitutionality of the statute upon which the prosecution is based is an error patent on the face of the record and is, thus, properly raised for the first time on appeal.
State v. Rheams 352 So. 2d 615 La. 1977
1168 (E.D.La.1970), aff'd, 434 F.2d 1307 (5th Cir. 1970); State v. Richard, 245 La.
Connick v. Lucky Pierre's 331 So. 2d 431 La. 1976
989 (1953); State v. Heck, La., (1975); City of Baton Rouge v. Norman, La., (1974).
State v. Newton 328 So. 2d 110 La. 1976
2908 , 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973)
State v. Clark 325 So. 2d 802 La. 1976
State v. Williams 322 So. 2d 177 La. 1975
State v. Sharp 321 So. 2d 331 La. 1975
in support of his argument that the mistake in the date here is a defect of substance which "* * * will work to the prejudice of the party accused.
State v. Comeaux 319 So. 2d 897 La. 1975
City of Baton Rouge v. Norman, La., (1974); State v. Evans, 214 La.
State v. Badeaux 309 So. 2d 337 La. 1975
City of Baton Rouge v. Ewing 308 So. 2d 776 La. 1975
(decided January 20, 1975,) ("engaging in a fistic encounter"); (La.
State v. Heck 307 So. 2d 332 La. 1975
City of Baton Rouge v. Norman, La., (1974); State v. Evans, 214 La.
State v. Wright 305 So. 2d 406 La. 1974
State v. Slayton 301 So. 2d 600 La. 1974
Art. 1, § 10; State v. Dardar, 257 La.