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. Searle, 339 So. 2d 1194.

52 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Joseph Dewayne Brown La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
  • State of Louisiana in the Interest of D.W. La. 2023
  • State Of Louisiana in the Interest of D.W. La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2022
    Thus, on appeal, the standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence enunciated in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 6 (La.
  • State Of Louisiana v. Andrew Jerome Francis La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
  • State of Louisiana v. Marcus W. Anderson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
  • State v. Anderson 66 So. 3d 568 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • State v. Wilson 956 So. 2d 41 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
    [1] addressed a double jeopardy issue, involved the presumption that a person caught with recently stolen goods probably stole the goods.
  • State v. Marcantel 815 So. 2d 50 La. 2002
    That presumption, however, has dubious constitutional validity, (on reh'g), but may provide a rational, permissive inference for a factfinder under the particular circumstances of the offense.
  • City of Baton Rouge v. Ross 654 So. 2d 1311 La. 1995
    1965, 1972-1973 , 85 L.Ed.2d 344 (1985); ( on rehearing ).
  • State v. Maxie 614 So. 2d 1318 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    NOTES [1] determined that the statutory presumption, created by LSA-R.S.
  • State v. Causey 533 So. 2d 1050 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    [the] presumption that a defendant found in possession of property recently stolen in a burglary is presumed to have committed the burglary does 'not meet the beyond-a-reasonable doubt standard, and ...
  • State v. Johnson 530 So. 2d 641 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Holts 525 So. 2d 1241 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Spooner 520 So. 2d 336 La. 1988
  • State v. Arrington 514 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    However, repudiated the presumption with language which is equally appropriate here: *678 "...
  • State v. Lindsey 491 So. 2d 371 La. 1986
  • State v. Nelson 487 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
    However, repudiated the presumption with language which is equally appropriate here: "...
  • State v. Torres 470 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
    e.g., that the defendant's entry into the car was unauthorized.
  • State v. Richmond 464 So. 2d 430 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Overruled State v. Hopson 464 So. 2d 18 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    Defendant is correct that such a
  • State ex rel. Sprinkle v. Cain 463 So. 2d 7 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    the facts presented at trial demonstrate otherwise.
  • State v. Brown 445 So. 2d 422 La. 1984
    However, repudiated the presumption with language which is equally appropriate here: "...
  • State v. Alexander 437 So. 2d 991 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Lockhart 438 So. 2d 1089 La. 1983
  • State v. Johnson 406 So. 2d 153 La. 1981
    See Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 , 95 S.Ct.
  • State v. Prestridge 399 So. 2d 564 La. 1981
    Louisiana Constitution 1974, Art. 1, §§ 2 and 16
  • State v. Morris 397 So. 2d 1237 La. 1981
    1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970); State v. Peoples, supra
  • State v. Fournier 395 So. 2d 749 La. 1981
    ” (on rehearing), this court had judicially extended this statutory presumption to apply to the crime of simple burglary.
  • State v. Morrison 392 So. 2d 1037 La. 1980
    1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970); (La.
  • State v. Williams 383 So. 2d 369 La. 1980
    1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970)
  • State v. Burton 382 So. 2d 939 La. 1980
    40:1788(B) and the United States Supreme Court decision in Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 , 89 S.Ct.
  • State v. Sonnier 379 So. 2d 1336 La. 1980
    1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970)
  • State v. Williams 375 So. 2d 931 La. 1979
  • State v. Bell 373 So. 2d 184 La. 1979
    2357, 2361-62 , 37 L.Ed.2d 380 (1973), federal due process is not offended if, at the least, “a statutory inference submitted to the jury as sufficient to support conviction satisfies the reasonable-doubt standard (that is, the evidence necessary to invoke the inference is sufficient for a rational juror to find the inferred fact beyond a reasonable doubt) * * we interpreted to similar effect state constitutional provisions and noted that, under them, the statutory inference (presumption) “canno
  • State v. Bergeron 371 So. 2d 1309 La. 1979
    (on rehearing), this court had permitted the extension of the statutory presumption of R.S.
  • State v. Muse 363 So. 2d 462 La. 1978
    15:432 that `the person in the unexplained possession of property recently stolen is the thief is unconstitutional, without effect, and cannot relieve the state of its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt each and every essential element of the crime charged; (La.
  • State v. Hammontree 363 So. 2d 1364 La. 1978
  • State v. Taylor 363 So. 2d 699 La. 1978
    (on rehearing), we noted that "in order to sustain the use of a presumption to prove the crime charged or an essential element thereof it is incumbent upon the prosecution to demonstrate that the presumed fact must beyond a reasonable doubt flow from the proven fact on which it is made to depend."
  • State v. Spears 363 So. 2d 479 La. 1978
    (on rehearing), the instruction violated the state and federal constitutional requirement that the state prove its case against defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • State v. Graham 360 So. 2d 853 La. 1978
    1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970); (La.
  • State v. Dilworth 358 So. 2d 1254 La. 1978
    State v. Bennett, supra ; State v. McQueen, La., (1973), overruled on other grounds, State v. Searle, La., (1976).
  • State v. Williams 359 So. 2d 115 La. 1978
    But see also, and State v. Coleman, supra (dissenting opinion).
  • State v. Coleman 358 So. 2d 289 La. 1978
    (1976), we indicated doubt as to the continued constitutional validity of the presumption and suggested legislative attention to the problems posed, , and we likewise cited jurisprudence to the effect that "if the meaning of the presumption as conveyed to the jury by an instruction in a particular *292
  • State v. McGhee 350 So. 2d 370 La. 1977
    15:432 cannot be utilized in an armed robbery case, 2) the references violated defendants' right to remain silent in violation of the federal and state constitutions; 3) the presumption of R.S.
  • State v. Cobbs 350 So. 2d 168 La. 1977
    which rejected the proposition that a defendant found in possession of property recently stolen in a burglary is presumed to have committed the burglary.
  • City of Monroe v. French 345 So. 2d 23 La. 1977
    Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 ; .
  • State v. Anderson 343 So. 2d 135 La. 1977
  • State v. O'QUINN 342 So. 2d 202 La. 1977
  • State v. Everfield 342 So. 2d 648 La. 1977
    we concluded that the same obligation is imposed by our state constitution.
  • State v. Jamerson 341 So. 2d 1118 La. 1977
    Such a charge, the defense contends