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 v. Francois 844 So. 2d 1042 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    To aid in determining whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to establish specific intent to distribute, the Louisiana Supreme Court, enumerated the following five factors: (1) whether the defendant ever distributed or attempted to distribute the drug; (2) whether the drug was in a form usually associated with possession for distribution to others; (3) whether the amount of drug created an inference of an intent to distribute; (4) wh
  • State v. Hall 843 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    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. Sandoval 841 So. 2d 977 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    The Louisiana Supreme Court has recognized a series of factors that may give rise to a reasonable inference that a defendant had the specific intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance in State v. Hearold, supra
  • State v. Wade 832 So. 2d 977 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
  • State v. Howard 805 So. 2d 1247 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    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. Ratliff 796 So. 2d 101 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    State v. Ard, 95-1567 (La.App.
  • State v. Johnson 796 So. 2d 201 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
  • State v. Hebert 787 So. 2d 1041 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    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. Stanley 780 So. 2d 1207 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
  • State v. Stanley 780 So. 2d 1207 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
  • State v. Johnson 780 So. 2d 1140 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    the Louisiana Supreme Court listed five factors, that are helpful in determining whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove the intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance: (1) whether the defendant ever distributed or attempted to distribute the drug; (2) whether the drug was in a form usually associated with possession for distribu
  • State v. Brown 779 So. 2d 847 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
  • State v. Johnson 780 So. 2d 403 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    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. Johnson 766 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    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. Snavely 759 So. 2d 950 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
  • State v. Young 764 So. 2d 998 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed certain factors that are useful in determining whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove the intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance.
  • State v. Wells 755 So. 2d 963 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    to draw this conclusion.
  • State v. Crosby 748 So. 2d 502 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    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. Thomas 745 So. 2d 776 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    State v. Gladney, supra; (La.App.
  • State v. Mamon 743 So. 2d 766 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    the Louisiana Supreme Court listed five factors, that are helpful in determining whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove the intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance: (1) whether the defendant ever distributed or attempted to distribute the drug; (2) whether the drug was in a form usually associated with possession for distribu
  • State v. Jones 741 So. 2d 706 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed some of the factors to be used in determining whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance.
  • State v. Franklin 719 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
  • State v. Perry 720 So. 2d 345 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    and restated in Hearold, 603 So.2d at 735 , as follows: (1) whether the defendant ever distributed or attempted to distribute the drug; (2) whether the drug was in a form usually associated with possession for distribution to others; (3) whether the amount of drug created an inference of an intent to distrib
  • State v. Goodjoint 716 So. 2d 139 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
  • State v. Goodjoint 716 So. 2d 139 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
  • State v. Perkins 716 So. 2d 120 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
  • State v. Smith 713 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
  • State v. Spencer 707 So. 2d 96 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
  • State v. Jack 700 So. 2d 1177 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    3 Cir.1992), writ denied, which are utilized in determining whether a person possessing controlled substances also has an intent to distribute those substances.
  • State v. Gladney 700 So. 2d 575 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
  • State v. Martin 694 So. 2d 1209 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
  • State v. Garner 694 So. 2d 535 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    our Supreme Court listed factors to determine the intent to distribute, and one of these factors is “whether the defendant ever distributed or attempted to distribute the drag”.
  • State v. Ard 686 So. 2d 1026 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
  • State v. King 683 So. 2d 1228 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    *1233 The defendant argues the state failed to establish the intent to distribute, : (1) that the defendant ever distributed or attempted to distribute any (drug); (2) that the (drug) was in a form usually associated with (drug) possessed for distribution to others; (3) that the amount was such as to create a presumption of intent to distribute; (4) of expert or other testimony that such an
  • State v. Walker 684 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    3 Cir.), writ denied, writ denied, 623 So.2d *14 1326 (La.1993), to prove intent: The intent to distribute may be established by proving circumstances surrounding defendant’s possession which give rise to reasonable inferences of intent to distribute.
  • State v. Robertson 672 So. 2d 391 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed some of the factors to be used in determining whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance.
  • State v. Taylor 662 So. 2d 69 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
    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. Bannister 658 So. 2d 16 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • State v. Cushenberry 650 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
    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. Pollard 640 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
  • State v. Lee 637 So. 2d 656 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • State v. Jackson 629 So. 2d 1374 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
  • State v. Jackson 629 So. 2d 1374 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
  • State v. Johnson 621 So. 2d 903 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    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. Appacrombie 616 So. 2d 285 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    State v. Hall, supra ; (La.App.
  • State v. Gay 616 So. 2d 1290 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    writ granted in part denied in part
  • State v. Daniels 614 So. 2d 97 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
  • State v. Lowery 609 So. 2d 1125 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    State v. Winzer, supra .
  • State v. Williams 608 So. 2d 266 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
  • State v. Hearold 603 So. 2d 731 La. 1992
    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.