Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Marcello, 385 So. 2d 244.

46 citing documents.

State of Louisiana in the Interest of A.B.. La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
App. 4 Cir. 9/25/19), : The intent required for simple burglary is “the specific intent to commit either a felony or a theft at the time of his unauthorized entry.” (La.
State of Louisana Versus Dan Robertson La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
Relying on Marcello and Ricks,6 defendant contends that his presence and subsequent flight, without possession of 6 (La.
State Of Louisiana in the Interest of D.W. La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2022
The intent required for simple burglary is “the specific intent to commit either a felony or a theft at the time of his unauthorized entry.” (La.
State of Louisiana in the Interest of J.P. . La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2019
The intent required for simple burglary is “the specific intent to commit either a felony or a 3 theft at the time of his unauthorized entry.” (La.
State v. Hoang 207 So. 3d 473 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
“A verdict of guilt is justified only when the record shows that at least some evidence was before the trier of fact for each essential element of the offense.” (La.
State of Louisiana v. Patrick Michael Shelvin AKA - Patrick Shelvin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
the defendant was discovered in the hallway of an office building after he entered the building through the roof, where he was sleeping, to wash in a restroom.
State v. Shelvin 181 So. 3d 879 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
the defendant was discovered in the hallway of an office building after he entered the building through the roof, where he.
State of Louisiana v. Marcus W. Anderson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Anderson 66 So. 3d 568 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State of Louisiana v. Melvin Tassin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Finally, wherein the defendant entered a public building to use soap and water to clean up.
State v. Tassin 997 So. 2d 750 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Finally, wherein the defendant entered a public building to use soap and water to clean up.
State v. Wilson 956 So. 2d 41 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
where the defendant entered a public building after hours, the Court addressed the issue of the defendant's specific intent to commit a felony after he entered.
State v. Wright 840 So. 2d 1271 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
the evidence indicated the defendant had been sleeping in an air-conditioning unit on the roof of a building and climbed down a ladder and entered a third floor restroom.
State v. Guillory 773 So. 2d 794 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
State v. Bass 767 So. 2d 772 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. Winslow 702 So. 2d 22 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Finally, Winslow contends that as in State v. Jacobs, supra, the evidence really only supports a finding that he was looking for a “place to stay” and listen to the radio, not any intent to commit a felony or any theft in the van.
State v. Black 627 So. 2d 741 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
Finally, wherein the defendant entered a public building to use soap and water to clean up.
State v. Hooker 623 So. 2d 178 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
Hooker cites, however, as authority for a different inference that can be drawn from similar facts.
State v. Bancroft 620 So. 2d 482 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
the court noted that pursuant to La.R.S.
State v. Bonck 613 So. 2d 1125 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
State v. Walker 600 So. 2d 911 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
Regarding the defendant's allegation that the State failed to prove any "specific intent," the Louisiana Supreme Court, defined specific intent as the "state of mind which exists when the circumstances indicate that the offender actually desired and prescribed criminal consequences to follow his act or failure to act."
State v. Bailey 573 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
State v. Howard 557 So. 2d 349 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
The defendant argues that consumption of minor items of food does not embrace a theft
State v. Richardson 547 So. 2d 749 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
State v. Davis 546 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State ex rel. Nelson 533 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
in each of which cases the court found the evidence was insufficient to prove intent to commit theft or felony in a prosecution for attempted burglary or burglary.
State v. Lott 535 So. 2d 963 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
State v. Skipper 527 So. 2d 1171 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
State v. Brooks 505 So. 2d 245 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
to support his contention that intent was never proved.
State v. Jacobs 504 So. 2d 817 La. 1987
State v. Brown 504 So. 2d 1055 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Scott 496 So. 2d 571 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Steward 483 So. 2d 155 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
In State v. Marcello the court found a reasonable hypothesis of innocence from evidence which indicated he had broken into an office building to use the restroom.
State v. Rounds 476 So. 2d 965 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Moore 477 So. 2d 1231 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Burns 471 So. 2d 949 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Dunbar 467 So. 2d 139 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Patterson 459 So. 2d 714 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
Specific intent to commit theft or other felony is required for attempted simple burglary, , (La.1983); and may be inferred from the circumstances.
State v. Moore 446 So. 2d 917 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Lawson 446 So. 2d 494 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Robinson 441 So. 2d 364 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Lockhart 438 So. 2d 1089 La. 1983
Distinguished State v. Jacobs 435 So. 2d 1014 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Jones 426 So. 2d 1323 La. 1983
State v. Ricks 428 So. 2d 794 La. 1983
State v. Pike 426 So. 2d 1329 La. 1983