Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Lentz, 306 So. 2d 683.

15 citing documents.

State v. Hayes 204 So. 3d 201 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
14:30.1A(1); State v. Godbolt, 06-0609 (La.App.
State v. Godbolt 950 So. 2d 727 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
State v. Sopczak 823 So. 2d 978 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
State v. Jackson 733 So. 2d 736 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Youngblood, 235 La.
State v. Holmes 701 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
the Louisiana Supreme Court delineated the appellate court's inquiry on this issue; the Court found that the specific legal question is not when the requisite specific intent was formed, but rather whether, at the time of the offense, the defendant was so intoxicated as to preclude the existence of any
State v. Mitchell 572 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
State v. Dean 487 So. 2d 709 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
art. 807) The defendant is entitled to an instruction on voluntary intoxication if there is evidence from which the jury might draw the inference that the defendant was intoxicated (or drugged) at the time of the commission of the offense, State v. Youngblood, 235 La.
State v. Huddleston 463 So. 2d 104 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
” From our review of the testimonial evidence in the record, we feel that the jurors could have reasonably inferred from the testimony that the defendant may have been entrapped.
State v. Eastin 419 So. 2d 933 La. 1982
State v. Sinegal 393 So. 2d 684 La. 1981
[3] stated that this caveat added to a charge on intoxication would be "...
State v. Mead 377 So. 2d 79 La. 1979
State v. Marse 365 So. 2d 1319 La. 1978
See also, (charge relative to intoxication as affecting intent pertinent to simple burglary prosecution); State v. Montalbano, 257 La.
State v. Mart 352 So. 2d 678 La. 1977
State v. Anderson 343 So. 2d 135 La. 1977
State v. Miller 338 So. 2d 678 La. 1976
State v. Montablano, 257 La.