Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Holmes, 388 So. 2d 722.

151 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Dequincy Jamel Lewis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2026
337 (1987), the supreme court discussed jurisprudence involving principals: In [State v.] Holmes, [] the jury convicted defendant of first degree murder committed during an armed robbery (of an A & P store) in which defendant participated.
State of Louisiana v. Deangelo Whitaker La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2025
denied, 484 U.S. 947, 108 S. Ct. 337, 98 L. Ed. 2d 363 (1987); (La.
State of Louisiana v. Donald Briggs, III A/K/A Donald Briggs La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2025
The shooter’s specific intent cannot be transferred to the principal; “[a]n individual may only be convicted as a principal for those crimes for which he personally has the requisite mental state.” State v. Pierre, 93– 0893 at p. 4 (La.2/3/94), –27 (La.1980)(reasoning that “[p]roof of one person’s intent is not proof of another’s” and thus that to find non-shooter liable state was require to establish “the circumstances indicated that [non- shooter] also actively desired the death of or great bo
State of Louisiana v. Ladarrius R. Torbor La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana in the Interest of R.B. Vs. La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
App. 4 Cir. 12/14/11), (-27 (La.
State Of Louisiana v. Timothy Lee Elliott La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
State v. Henry 256 So. 3d 1080 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
4/3/01), , 923 ; , 727 (La.1980) ) "It is not necessary that a person be present in the dwelling at the time of the unauthorized entry to satisfy the inhabitation requirement; however, it must be proven that someone was actually 'living' in the dwelling at the time."
State of Louisiana v. Kade Starbuck Henry La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
4/3/01), ) “It is not necessary that a person be present in the dwelling at the time of the unauthorized entry to satisfy the inhabitation requirement; however, it must be proven that someone was actually ‘living’ in the dwelling at the time.” State v. Morrison, 07-5, p. 5 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Chadwick McGhee 223 So. 3d 1136 La. 2017
It must be shown that this accused also had the specific intent [required for the offense].” (La.
State v. Gaubert 179 So. 3d 982 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
acts which have been declared criminal.’ ” State v. Oliphant, 12-1176, p. *989 12 (La.3/19/13), (); (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Chadwick McGhee La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
Additionally, “[i]t is not enough to find merely that his coconspirator or accomplice had the necessary mental state, since this intent cannot be inferred to the accused.”
State v. McGhee 179 So. 3d 739 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Additionally, 6[i]t is not enough to find merely that his coconspirator or accomplice had the necessary mental state, since this intent cannot be inferred- to -the accused.”
State v. Moore 134 So. 3d 1265 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
State v. Huey 142 So. 3d 27 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State of Louisiana v. Albert L. Arnold La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
“In general intent crimes, criminal intent necessary to sustain a conviction is shown by the very doing of the acts which have been declared criminal.”
State v. Arnold 124 So. 3d 592 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
“In general intent crimes, criminal intent necessary to sustain a conviction is shown by the very doing of the acts which have been declared criminal.”
State v. Baham 117 So. 3d 505 La. 2013
State v. Collins, 2000-1818, p. 6 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Christopher Marshall, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Shilow, 252 La.
State v. Marshall 157 So. 3d 666 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Shilow, 252 La.
State of Louisiana v. Ronald G. Acker, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
A principal may be convicted of a higher of [sic] lower degree of the crime, depending upon the mental element proved at trial.” Smith, 450 So.2d at 717 ().
State v. Acker 111 So. 3d 535 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
A principal may be convicted of a higher of [sic] lower degree of the crime, depending upon the mental element proved at trial.” Smith, 450 So.2d at 717 ( (La.
State v. Oliphant 113 So. 3d 165 La. 2013
“In general intent crimes, criminal intent necessary to sustain a conviction is shown by the very doing of the acts which have been declared criminal.”
State of Louisiana v. Byran Louis Fogleman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
the supreme court stated: “In general intent crimes, [the] criminal intent necessary to sustain a conviction is shown by the very doing of the acts which have been declared criminal.” 2 The defendant also cites as authority for his position State v. Robertson, 06-167 (La.App.
State v. Fogleman 98 So. 3d 964 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
the supreme court stated: “In general intent crimes, [the] criminal intent necessary to sustain a conviction is shown by the very doing of the acts which have been declared criminal.” |7Based on the language of La.R.S.
State v. Massey 91 So. 3d 453 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Cooks 81 So. 3d 932 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State of Louisiana v. Paxton Jules Trahan La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Trahan 61 So. 3d 794 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Williams 54 So. 3d 1129 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
State v. Smith, 2007-2028 (La.10/20/09), .
State of Louisiana v. Brian Keith Thomas La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. Thomas 48 So. 3d 1210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Fernandez 50 So. 3d 219 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Moreover, “an individual may only be convicted as a principal for those crimes for which he personally has the requisite mental state.”
State v. Smith 23 So. 3d 291 La. 2009
A principal may be convicted of a higher of lower degree of the crime, depending upon the mental element proved at trial.” Smith, 450 So.2d at 717 ().
State v. QUAC TRAN 18 So. 3d 165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Moreover, “an individual may only be convicted as a principal for those crimes for which he personally has the requisite mental state.”
State v. Speed 2 So. 3d 582 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
State v. Heyward, 94-0023 (La.6/3/94)
State v. Butler 997 So. 2d 631 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
Pierre , 93-893 at 4, 631 So.2d at 428
State v. Watson 993 So. 2d 779 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
State Ex Rel. Gb 985 So. 2d 828 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
State ex rel. G.B. 985 So. 2d 828 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
State v. White 968 So. 2d 901 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
State v. Arnold 970 So. 2d 1067 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
State v. Pierre, 93-0893 (La.2/3/94), (per curiam) ().
State v. Henderson 958 So. 2d 101 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
State v. Scroggins 926 So. 2d 64 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Arceneaux 930 So. 2d 44 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Pierre, supra ( (La.
State of Louisiana v. Dustin K. Runyon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Runyon 916 So. 2d 407 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Stevenson 908 So. 2d 48 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State ex rel. E.D.C. 903 So. 2d 571 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
State v. Thompson 894 So. 2d 1268 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
State v. Mitchell 894 So. 2d 1240 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
"it is necessary as to the co-conspirator who did not pull the trigger that the circumstances indicated that he also actively desired the death of or great bodily harm to the victim."