DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Mart, 352 So. 2d 678.

26 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. David Anthony Burns La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
    (finding “that a lack of motive may properly be considered as a circumstance mitigating against specific intent”).
  • State of Louisiana v. Daniel E. Johnson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
    In deciding to reinstate the jury verdict, the court reasoned as follows: Motive is not an essential element of murder, but “a lack of motive may properly be considered as a circumstance mitigating against specific intent.”
  • State Of Louisiana v. Ricky Armentor La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
    3d 357 ( where no urine or blood tests were performed, and only testimony suggesting intoxication that defendant could have been intoxicated prior to burglary was that of one witness, and this testimony was contradicted by that of two police officers, intoxication jury instruction properly denied); ( La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Zachary Alexander Bench La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
    This court did note that “[a]lthough motive is not an essential element of second degree murder, ‘a lack of motive may properly be considered as a circumstance mitigating against specific intent.’” Carmouche, 117 So.3d at 146 ().
  • State v. Bench 256 So. 3d 345 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    " Carmouche , 117 So.3d at 146 (citing State v. Mart , , 681 (La.1977) ).
  • State v. Christopher 209 So. 3d 255 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
  • State of Louisiana v. Quint Mire 269 So. 3d 698 La. 2016
  • State of Louisiana v. Quint Mire La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    3 Cir. 4/3/13), (wherein a for the proposition that, although motive is not an essential element of second degree murder, an absence of motive may be considered as a circumstance mitigating against specific intent).
  • State v. Caliste 125 So. 3d 8 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    | in“Motive is not an essential element of murder, but ‘a lack of motive may properly be considered as a circumstance mitigating against specific intent.’ ”
  • State v. Carmouche 117 So. 3d 136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Although motive is not an essential element of second degree murder, “a lack of motive may properly be considered as a circumstance mitigating against specific intent.”
  • State of Louisiana v. Jamal James Carmouche La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    Although motive is not an essential element of second degree murder, “a lack of motive may properly be considered as a circumstance mitigating against specific intent.”
  • STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS H. O.,aka J. O., AKA H. B.,aka H. B. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • State of Louisiana v. Mary Henderson Trahan La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    Motive is not an essential element of murder, but “a lack of motive may properly be considered as a circumstance mitigating against specific intent.”
  • State v. Trahan 69 So. 3d 1240 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Motive is not an essential element of murder, but “a lack of motive may properly be considered as a circumstance mitigating against specific intent.”
  • State of Louisiana v. David Lee Leger La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
  • State v. Leger 907 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    State v. Williams, 93-2707, p. 4 (La.3/11/94), ( ).
  • State v. Severin 885 So. 2d 609 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
    However, the Louisiana Supreme Court *618 has explained that absence of proof of motive "`may properly be considered as a circumstance mitigating against specific intent.'" State v. Williams, 93-2707, p. 4 (La.3/11/94), ().
  • State v. Wommack 770 So. 2d 365 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    State v. Williams, 93-2707, p. 4 (La.3/11/94)
  • State v. James 665 So. 2d 581 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
    the defendant proposed the following instruction: Motive is not an element of any offense in this case and the state has no burden to prove motive or to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • State v. Williams 633 So. 2d 147 La. 1994
  • State v. Dean 487 So. 2d 709 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
    art. 807) The defendant is entitled to an instruction on voluntary intoxication if there is evidence from which the jury might draw the inference that the defendant was intoxicated (or drugged) at the time of the commission of the offense, State v. Youngblood, 235 La.
  • State v. Adams 446 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Mart 419 So. 2d 1216 La. 1982
  • State v. Tolbert 390 So. 2d 510 La. 1980
    [1] held that a defendant was entitled to those charges to modify a general charge on motive.
  • State v. Murray 375 So. 2d 80 La. 1979
  • State v. Marse 365 So. 2d 1319 La. 1978
    On the other hand, after reversing a second degree murder conviction on other grounds, we stated that on retrial an instruction on negligent homicide should be given.