Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Walker, 350 So. 2d 176.

44 citing documents.

State of Louisiana Versus Wayne Norman La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2020
State v. Webster 246 So. 3d 779 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
State v. Woods 91 So. 3d 289 La. 2012
It is also specifically governed by this Court’s jurisprudential rule that “mere possession of stolen property does not create a presumption that the person in possession of the property received it with knowledge that it was stolen by someone else.” ( ).
State ex rel. J.W. 95 So. 3d 1187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State ex rel. J.W. 95 So. 3d 1181 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State of Louisiana v. Gary Wayne Woods La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
12/19/97), : In Louisiana, the “mere possession of stolen property does not create a presumption that the person in possession of the property received it with knowledge that it was stolen by someone else.”
State v. Woods 84 So. 3d 773 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
cites the following from State v. Chester, 97-1001, pp. 2-3 (La.12/19/97), , 974: In Louisiana, the “mere possession of stolen property does not create a presumption that the person in possession of the property received it with knowledge that it was stolen by someone else.”
State of Louisiana v. Zoran Johnson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
12/19/97), the supreme court stated: In Louisiana, the “mere possession of stolen property does not create a presumption that the person in possession of the property received it with knowledge that it was stolen by someone else.”
State v. Johnson 28 So. 3d 1263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
tate v. Chester, 97-1001, pp. 2-3 (La.12/19/97), , the supreme court stated: In Louisiana, the “mere possession of stolen property does not create a presumption that the person in possession of the property received it with knowledge that it was stolen by someone else.”
State v. Dell 10 So. 3d 894 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Morris 945 So. 2d 212 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Lewis 885 So. 2d 641 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
State v. Harbor 775 So. 2d 1082 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. McCadney 761 So. 2d 579 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
eme Court commented on the knowledge element of the crime of possessing stolen things, stating: In Louisiana, the “mere possession of stolen property does not create a presumption that the person in possession of the property received it with knowledge that it was stolen by someone else.”
State v. Chester 707 So. 2d 973 La. 1997
State v. Silvio 623 So. 2d 1345 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
State ex rel. B.J. 617 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
State, in Interest of Bj 617 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
State v. Hoskin 605 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
State v. Elie 567 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
State v. East 553 So. 2d 1046 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Mitchell 553 So. 2d 915 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Wilson 544 So. 2d 1300 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
State v. Brown 537 So. 2d 1252 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
State v. Mercadel, supra
State v. Howkins 516 So. 2d 188 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
The four essential elements of this offense, are: (1) the item was stolen; (2) the item was of value; (3) the defendant knew or should have known that the property was stolen; and (4) the defendant intentionally procured, received, or concealed the property.
State v. Mangrum 509 So. 2d 818 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Fraley 499 So. 2d 1304 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
State v. Price 454 So. 2d 377 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
14:69; The State presented evidence which identified the defendant as the person who sold the jewelry to the Odyssey Gold Exchange.
State v. Slaughter 451 So. 2d 59 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
the court enumerated the four essential elements that must be proven to sustain a conviction of this crime: (1) that the item was stolen; (2) that the item was of value; (3) that the defendant knew or should have known the property was stolen; and (4) that defendant intentionally procured, received, or
State v. Camp 446 So. 2d 1207 La. 1984
State v. Fuller 446 So. 2d 799 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State ex rel. Nelson 442 So. 2d 729 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Honeycutt 438 So. 2d 1303 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Moore 439 So. 2d 1178 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
the court enumerated the four essential elements that must be proven to sustain a conviction of this crime: (1) that the item was stolen; (2) that the item was of value; (3) that the defendant knew or should have known the property was stolen; and (4) that the defendant intentionally procured, received, or
State v. Camp 436 So. 2d 723 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Rosado 431 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
the court held that the crime of receiving stolen things consists of four separate elements which must be proven: (1) the intentional procuring, receiving or concealing; (2) of anything of value; (3) which has been the subject of any robbery or theft; (4) under circumstances which indicate that the offe
State v. Morris 414 So. 2d 320 La. 1982
State v. Ennis 414 So. 2d 661 La. 1982
State v. Rayford 403 So. 2d 704 La. 1981
State v. Russell 397 So. 2d 1319 La. 1981
State v. Walker 374 So. 2d 1223 La. 1979
To prove the crime of receiving stolen things, the state must prove that the defendant procured, received or concealed the stolen thing under circumstances which indicate that the offender knew or had good reason to believe that the thing was the subject of either a theft or robbery
State v. Walker 369 So. 2d 139 La. 1979
State v. Nguyen 367 So. 2d 342 La. 1979
State v. LeJeune 352 So. 2d 619 La. 1977
In State v. Walker, La., (1977), we stated: "Thus, the crime consists of four elements, each of which the State has the burden of proving: (1) the intentional procuring, receiving, or concealing (2) of anything of value (3) which has been the subject of any robbery or theft (4) under circumstances which indicate that the offender knew or had