Cited by

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

144 citing documents.

State v. Hall 602 So. 2d 256 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
State v. Tucker 604 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
State v. McNair 597 So. 2d 1096 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
State v. *1102 Hunt, writ granted in part , denied in part
State v. Young 596 So. 2d 403 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
State v. Harmon 594 So. 2d 1054 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
State v. McCaleb 593 So. 2d 1388 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
State v. Hookfin 601 So. 2d 320 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
State v. Alsandor 587 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
State v. Segura, supra; (La.App.
State v. Gene 587 So. 2d 18 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
State v. Tyler, supra, at 499 .
State v. Gene 587 So. 2d 18 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
State v. Hughes 587 So. 2d 31 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
: (1) Whether the defendant ever distributed or attempted to distribute marijuana; (2) Whether the marijuana was in a form usually associated with distribution to others; (3) Whether the amount was such as to create a presumption of intent to distribute; (4) Expert or other testimony that the amount found in
State v. Krueutzer 583 So. 2d 1160 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
State v. Hunt 568 So. 2d 1104 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
State v. Hearold 567 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
State v. Coleman, supra .
State v. Coleman 552 So. 2d 513 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
State v. Roberts 550 So. 2d 1254 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
State v. Thomas 546 So. 2d 343 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Segura 546 So. 2d 1347 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Winzer 545 So. 2d 1259 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
State v. Jones 544 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
2nd Cir.1988), and stated: "Factors which are useful in determining whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove an intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance include (1) whether the defendant ever distributed or attempted to distribute any marijuana; (2) was the marijuana in a form usually associated
State v. McIntyre 544 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
The Supreme Court set aside the defendant's *89 conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and stated that: "In similarly reversing a jury conviction for possession with intent to distribute twenty-one marijuana cigarettes, [(La.
State v. Tyler 544 So. 2d 495 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
State v. Thomas 543 So. 2d 540 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
State v. Martin 543 So. 2d 1020 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Johnson 513 So. 2d 832 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
the supreme court produced a five-part test for use in determining whether intent to distribute exists: 1) Packaging in a form usually associated with distribution; 2) Had the defendant ever distributed or attempted to distribute the drug before?
State v. Green 508 So. 2d 602 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State v. Myre 502 So. 2d 1105 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
State v. Harper 490 So. 2d 607 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
State v. Jordan 489 So. 2d 994 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Benton 464 So. 2d 960 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
State v. Williams 464 So. 2d 822 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State v. Greenway, supra
State v. Trahan 425 So. 2d 1222 La. 1983
State v. Greenway 422 So. 2d 1146 La. 1982
State v. Duncan 420 So. 2d 1105 La. 1982
State v. Willis, supra .
State v. Ramoin 410 So. 2d 1010 La. 1982
State v. Johnson 404 So. 2d 239 La. 1981
State v. Harveston 389 So. 2d 63 La. 1980
State v. Carter 363 So. 2d 893 La. 1978
State v. Elzie, supra; State v. Willis, La., (1975); and State v. House, La., (1975).
State v. Franklin 353 So. 2d 1315 La. 1977
State v. 1971 Green GMC Van 354 So. 2d 479 La. 1977
State v. Elzie 343 So. 2d 712 La. 1977
State v. Hall 342 So. 2d 616 La. 1977
State v. Marks 337 So. 2d 1177 La. 1976
State v. Strahan 325 So. 2d 231 La. 1976
Art. 778 as amended in 1975; , (La.1976), dissenting opinion.