Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Williams, 383 So. 2d 369.

105 citing documents.

  • State v. Guidry 635 So. 2d 731 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • State v. Williams 633 So. 2d 147 La. 1994
  • State v. Rice 626 So. 2d 515 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    stayed execution, certiorari denied, 449 U.S. 1103 , 101 S.Ct.
  • State v. Cavazos 610 So. 2d 127 La. 1992
  • State v. Ross 604 So. 2d 1036 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
  • State v. Sullivan 596 So. 2d 177 La. 1992
  • State v. English 582 So. 2d 1358 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
  • State v. Edgar 570 So. 2d 88 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
  • State v. Romero 574 So. 2d 330 La. 1990
  • State v. Messiah 538 So. 2d 175 La. 1988
    See State v. Neslo, supra at 87
  • State v. Tassin 536 So. 2d 402 La. 1988
  • State v. Loya 527 So. 2d 514 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    writ denied at 449 U.S. 1103 , 101 S.Ct.
  • State v. Mills 505 So. 2d 933 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Fraley 499 So. 2d 1304 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
    writ denied, 449 U.S. 1103 , 101 S.Ct.
  • State v. Perry 502 So. 2d 543 La. 1986
    449 U.S. 1103 , 101 S.Ct.
  • State v. Bahm 490 So. 2d 384 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    15:445; The facts related by the victims here were sufficient for the trial judge to conclude the defendant possessed the requisite specific intent to commit the offense.
  • State v. Guidry 487 So. 2d 1288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    the Louisiana Supreme Court said: “Specific intent is a state of mind and as such, it need not be proven as a fact, but may be inferred from the circumstances of the transaction and the actions of the defendant.” (Emphasis supplied.)
  • State v. Jones 474 So. 2d 919 La. 1985
    [23] which was reversed on appeal
  • State v. Wilson 467 So. 2d 503 La. 1985
  • State v. Wilson 469 So. 2d 1087 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • State v. Holmes 467 So. 2d 1177 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
    rehearing denied, 450 U.S. 971 , 101 S.Ct.
  • State v. Johnson 461 So. 2d 1273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Ring 461 So. 2d 1162 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Porter 454 So. 2d 220 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Honore 451 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
    expanded this somewhat to note that because specific intent is a state of mind, in the absence of direct evidence, it must also be inferred from the circumstances.
  • State v. Wilms 449 So. 2d 442 La. 1984
    -72 (La.1980), where this court considered but rejected the defendant's claim that his confession was involuntary because he heard his wife crying in the next room.
  • State v. Beck 445 So. 2d 470 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Fredenburg 441 So. 2d 443 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Benoit 440 So. 2d 129 La. 1983
    2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975); cert.
  • State v. Gatson 434 So. 2d 1315 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    (see footnote 3 of the majority opinion herein), Justice Blanche, writing on behalf of the majority of the Court, specifically acknowledged the reality that the Louisiana Constitution explicitly limits the review of criminal convictions on appeal to questions of law.
  • State v. Knighton 436 So. 2d 1141 La. 1983
  • State v. James 431 So. 2d 399 La. 1983
    NOTES [1] Justice Dennis has advanced this same argument in dissents in the following cases:
  • State v. Shapiro 431 So. 2d 372 La. 1983
  • State v. Oliney 430 So. 2d 1294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Moore 432 So. 2d 209 La. 1983
  • State v. White 430 So. 2d 174 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    209 , 66 L.Ed.2d 90 (1980); cert denied 449 U.S. 1103 , 101 S.Ct.
  • State v. Anthony 427 So. 2d 1155 La. 1983
  • State v. Lindsey 428 So. 2d 420 La. 1983
  • State v. Marler 428 So. 2d 954 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    writ denied, 449 U.S. 1103 , 101 S.Ct.
  • State v. Ruple 426 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Serrato 424 So. 2d 214 La. 1982
  • State v. Graham 420 So. 2d 1126 La. 1982
    State v. Garner, 241 La.
  • State v. Ennis 414 So. 2d 661 La. 1982
  • State v. Davis 411 So. 2d 2 La. 1982
    this Court said: Specific intent is a state of mind and as such, it need not be proven as a fact, but may be inferred from the circumstances of the transaction and the actions of the defendant.
  • State v. McDermitt 406 So. 2d 195 La. 1981
  • State v. Boyer 406 So. 2d 143 La. 1981
  • State v. Mattheson 407 So. 2d 1150 La. 1981
  • State v. Parish 405 So. 2d 1080 La. 1981
  • State v. Lindsey 404 So. 2d 466 La. 1981
    2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975)
  • State v. Sonnier 402 So. 2d 650 La. 1981