Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Victor, 368 So. 2d 711.

29 citing documents.

State in the Intrest of T. H. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
there are three essential elements of the crime of theft which must be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt: 1.
State ex rel. T.H. 140 So. 3d 911 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
*926 there are three essential elements of the crime of theft which must be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt: 1.
State v. Major 140 So. 3d 174 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
“A theft occurs when the thing is taken even though it may remain in the possession of the thief for only seconds.” -13 (La.1979)
State v. Major 108 So. 3d 288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Brumfield 104 So. 3d 701 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2012
“A theft occurs 11fiwhen the thing is taken even though it may remain in the possession of the thief for only seconds.” -13 (La.1979)
State v. Smith 105 So. 3d 744 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
Furthermore, in discussing the concept of “taking” in the context of theft, that a “taking” includes an intent to usurp or negate the owner’s dominion.
State v. Bess 47 So. 3d 524 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
State v. Baylor 998 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. Bowers 965 So. 2d 959 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
the court held, "A theft occurs when the thing is taken, although it may remain in the possession of the thief for only seconds."
State v. Bean 899 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
State v. Rabalais 759 So. 2d 836 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
there are three essential elements of the crime of theft which must be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt: 1.
State v. Wilson 718 So. 2d 546 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
The two leading cases on shoplifting thefts where the offender fails to remove the goods *549
State v. Gaidos 629 So. 2d 1328 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
(“taking” means an intent to usurp or negate the owner’s dominion); (La.App.
State v. Willis 569 So. 2d 1029 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Butler 521 So. 2d 683 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
e slightest misuse of anything belonging to another is a sufficient asportation or removal of the property if the trier of fact determines the offender’s activity was sufficient to amount to a “taking.” In setting forth its request for the special charge
State v. McCray 517 So. 2d 474 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Brown 481 So. 2d 665 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Wisham 476 So. 2d 534 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
that a taking occurs when the thief acquires control of the property.
State v. Gatson 434 So. 2d 1315 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Oliney 430 So. 2d 1294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Kinney 431 So. 2d 16 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
there are three essential elements of the crime of theft which must be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt: 1.
State v. Ruple 426 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Ennis 414 So. 2d 661 La. 1982
State v. White 404 So. 2d 1202 La. 1981
Distinguished State v. Williams 389 So. 2d 384 La. 1980
NOTES [1] in which the offender, who committed a "taking" under La.
State v. Marcal 388 So. 2d 656 La. 1980
State v. Mathews 375 So. 2d 1165 La. 1979
and jurisprudence cited.
State v. Austin 374 So. 2d 1252 La. 1979
State v. Bell 373 So. 2d 184 La. 1979