DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. House, 325 So. 2d 222.

144 citing documents.

  • State Of Louisiana in the Interest of K.H. La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
  • State of Louisiana v. Gary D. Howard 226 So. 3d 419 La. 2017
  • State of Louisiana v. Christopher O. James La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
  • State v. James 216 So. 3d 117 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
  • State v. Lee 208 So. 3d 492 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
  • State of Louisiana v. Steve Duane Williams -Aka- Ayaz Sutaria La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
  • State v. Williams 201 So. 3d 379 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
  • State v. Campbell 171 So. 3d 1176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    To assist in determining whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to establish specific intent to distribute, the Louisiana Supreme Court in the seminal case *1185 enumerated the following five factors: 1.
  • State v. Ansah 147 So. 3d 248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    In support of his argument that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction
  • State of Louisiana v. Johnny L. Eubanks La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
  • State v. Eubanks 112 So. 3d 1064 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State v. Williams 97 So. 3d 428 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    the Supreme Court identified five factors, which are helpful in determining whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove the intent to distributed a controlled dangerous substance: (1) whether the defendant ever distributed or attempted to distribute the drug; |7(2) whether the drug was in a form usually associated with possession for the
  • State of Louisiana v. Demarcus Fobb La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • State v. Fobb 91 So. 3d 1235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State of Louisiana v. Cederic D. Sereal La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    this court discussed certain factors which are useful in determining whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove the intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance.
  • State v. Scott 48 So. 3d 1080 La. 2010
    ociated with possession for distribution; (3) whether the amount of drug created an inference of an intent to distribute; (4) whether expert or other testimony established that the amount of drug found in defendant’s possession is inconsistent with personal use only; and (5) whether there was any paraphernalia, such as baggies or scales, evidencing an intent to distribute) ().
  • State v. Holden 30 So. 3d 1053 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
  • State ex rel. J.L. 23 So. 3d 993 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
    In State v. House [ ], this court discussed certain factors which are useful in determining whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove the intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance.
  • State v. Duncan 15 So. 3d 1171 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    this court discussed certain factors which are useful in determining whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove the intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance.
  • State v. Collins 12 So. 3d 1069 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
  • State v. Mosley 13 So. 3d 705 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Hearold, supra, 603 So.2d at 735
  • State v. Brown 996 So. 2d 461 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
  • State of Louisiana v. Robert Lee Samuel La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
  • State v. Samuel 984 So. 2d 256 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
  • State of Louisiana v. Archie Louis Carter, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    In State v. House, [], the court enumerated several factors from which the intent to distribute may be inferred.
  • State v. Carter 981 So. 2d 734 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    In State v. House, [ (La.
  • State v. Griffin 984 So. 2d 97 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
  • State of Louisiana v. Sammy D. Smith La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    this court discussed certain factors which are useful in determining whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove the intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance.
  • State v. Smith 974 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    this court discussed certain factors which are useful in determining whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove the intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance.
  • State v. Laurent 966 So. 2d 826 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
  • State v. Davis 958 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
    this court discussed certain factors which are useful in determining whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove the intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance.
  • State of Louisiana v. Jeremy D. Lee La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    The elements supporting such a determination are firmly entrenched in our jurisprudence, which is nowhere discussed or even mentioned by the majority.
  • State v. Lee 957 So. 2d 220 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    The elements supporting such a determination are firmly entrenched in our jurisprudence, which is nowhere discussed or even mentioned by the majority.
  • State v. Grant 954 So. 2d 823 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    vidence of Agent Peters seeing him in possession of the Baggie for a few seconds, combined with $760 being found on his person was insufficient to support his conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute; • and its progeny, because it did not exclude every possible hypothesis of innocence; • Agent Denham was not qualified as an expert witness and that, therefore, it was inappropriate for him to give an expert opinion on the packaging of controlled substances for sale; • in the
  • State of Louisiana v. Paul Roberts, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
  • State v. Roberts 947 So. 2d 208 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    3 Cir. 12/30/05), , writ denied, 06-0587 (La.10/13/06), ( ).
  • State v. Gibbs 935 So. 2d 349 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    and State v. Moore, 40,311 (La.App.2d Cir.1/13/06), , for the factors to be considered by the trier of fact when determining an individual's intent to sell or distribute: (1) packaging in a form usually associated with distribution; (2) evidence of other sales or attempted sales by the defenda
  • State of Louisiana v. Dallas D. Durgan La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    In State v. House, [], the court enumerated several factors from which the intent to distribute may be inferred.
  • State v. Durgan 931 So. 2d 1182 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    In State v. House, [ ], the court enumerated several factors from which the intent to distribute may be inferred.
  • State v. Moore 920 So. 2d 334 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
  • State of Louisiana v. Sammie Davis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
  • State v. Davis 918 So. 2d 1186 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
  • State v. Wiley 914 So. 2d 1117 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
  • State v. Grant 890 So. 2d 689 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
  • State of Louisiana v. John M. Benedict La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    to draw this conclusion.
  • State v. Benedict 887 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    to draw this conclusion.
  • State v. Francois 874 So. 2d 125 La. 2004
  • State v. Mitchell 869 So. 2d 276 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
    State v. Coleman, supra , citing, (La.App.
  • State v. Smith 868 So. 2d 794 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
  • State v. Sanders 842 So. 2d 1260 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003