Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Nguyen, 367 So. 2d 342.

17 citing documents.

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 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
t to support his conviction, appellate counsel 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
In State 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. Lewis 885 So. 2d 641 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
[4] a storeowner testified regarding a burglary of several jewelry items from his store.
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
a.12/19/97), , the Louisiana Supreme 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. Corkern 593 So. 2d 1259 La. 1992
State v. Daniel 536 So. 2d 796 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
State v. Smith 473 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
the Supreme Court of Louisiana held that the crime of receiving stolen things consists of four elements: (1) The procuring, receiving or concealing must have been intentional, (2) The thing or things procured, received or concealed must have a value, (3) The thing or things must have been stolen, and (
State v. Simpson 447 So. 2d 98 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
As to possession of stolen things, although possession alone does not give rise to a presumption that the person receiving it knew it was stolen, the circumstances surrounding the possession in this case could readily lead a rational trier of fact to conclude both defendants were the *101 thieves, received the property, and knew it to be stolen.
State v. Raymo 419 So. 2d 858 La. 1982
2141 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978); (La.
State v. Morris 414 So. 2d 320 La. 1982
State v. Walker, supra, at 178 .
State v. Ennis 414 So. 2d 661 La. 1982
State v. Walker, supra, at 178 .