Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Steele, 387 So. 2d 1175.

195 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Ron Cleon Johnson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana v. Shavis Breon Toby La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
The basis of his argument is that the two convictions were based upon the same evidence, and State v. Rabun, 38,655 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Tristan Romero La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
The majority noted that the legislature enacted Article 596 without the “responsiveness” requirement of former Article 279 of the 1928 Code of Criminal Procedure and thereby “broadened” the protection of the article, which view may have inspired the statement in [State v.] Steele[, ] that Louisiana law is “somewhat broader” than Blockburger.
State of Louisiana v. Corday Treveil Taylor La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
The majority noted that the legislature enacted Article 596 without the “responsiveness” requirement of former Article 279 of the 1928 Code of Criminal Procedure and thereby “broadened” the protection of the article, which view may have inspired the statement in [State v.] Steele[, ] that Louisiana law is “somewhat broader” than Blockburger.
State v. Sandifer 249 So. 3d 142 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Steele , , 1177 (La.
State v. Obrien 242 So. 3d 1254 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
3 Cir. 11/15/17) (unpublished opinion) (quoting State v. Steele , ).
State of Louisiana v. Jermaine Christopher Obrien AKA Jermaine Christopher O'Brien La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
3 Cir. 11/15/17) (unpublished opinion) ().
State of Louisiana v. Gregory Hampton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
State v. Hampton 259 So. 3d 1125 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Skylar Frank La. 2017
art. 596.8 This Court subsequently opined that “[t]he ‘same evidence test’ is somewhat broader in concept than Blockburger, the central idea being that one should not be punished (or put in jeopardy) twice for the same course of conduct.” (La.
State v. Mahogany 225 So. 3d 489 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Engle 213 So. 3d 1261 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Joshua Jerome Ball La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
306 (1932), and 2) the “same evidence test”
State v. Ball 209 So. 3d 793 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
306 (1932), and 2) the “same evidence test”
State v. Parker 195 So. 3d 1242 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Smith , 95-0061, p. 4, 676 So.2d at 1069-1070
State of Louisiana v. Skylar Frank La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
efendant was in jeopardy in the first trial, whether or not a responsive verdict could have been rendered in the first trial as to the charge in the second trial; or (2) Based on a part of a continuous offense for which offense the defendant was in jeopardy in the first trial.” Louisiana uses both the “Blockburger test” and the “same evidence test.” State v. Didier, 262 La.
State v. Lodge 195 So. 3d 567 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
306 (1932), and 2) the “same evidence test”
State v. Frank 192 So. 3d 888 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
he same offense for which the defendant was in jeopardy in the first trial, whether or not a responsive verdict could have been rendered in the first trial as to the charge in the second trial; or (2) Based on a part of a continuous offense for which offense the defendant was in jeopardy in the first trial.” Louisiana uses both the “Blockburger test” and the “same evidence test.” (La.
State of Louisiana v. William Shupp La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
State v. Shupp 185 So. 3d 900 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Darensbourg 183 So. 3d 720 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
The test depends on the evidence necessary for conviction, not all the evidence introduced at trial.”
State v. Fairman 173 So. 3d 1278 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Randle 166 So. 3d 465 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
State v. Mitchell 163 So. 3d 858 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
State of Louisiana v. Isaac Thomas La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
State v. Didier, 262 La.
State v. Thomas 159 So. 3d 1115 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Didier, 262 La.
State v. Butler 162 So. 3d 455 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Roe 151 So. 3d 838 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Broussard 149 So. 3d 446 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
State v. Staden 154 So. 3d 579 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
City of Baton Rouge, 654 So.2d at 1322
State v. Magee 146 So. 3d 193 La. 2014
The test “depends on the evidence necessary for a conviction, not all the evidence introduced at trial.”
State v. Magee 140 So. 3d 370 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Morrison 137 So. 3d 736 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Louisiana’s somewhat broader “same evidence” test considers not only the material elements of each offense but also whether the evidence required to convict of one crime would also support conviction of the other, focusing “on the evidence necessary for conviction, not all the evidence introduced at trial.”
State v. German 133 So. 3d 179 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Smith, 95-0061, p. 4, 676 So.2d at 1069-1070
State v. Childs 133 So. 3d 104 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
806 (1932), and (2) the “same evidence”
State of Louisiana v. Dana Bowles La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Didier, 262 La.
State v. Bowles 123 So. 3d 350 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Didier, 262 La.
State v. Balentine 119 So. 3d 979 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Ceasar, supra; State v. White, supra; (La.
State v. Mills 120 So. 3d 802 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
|sOn the other hand, the “same evidence test”, provides that: If the evidence required to support a finding of guilt of one crime would also have supported conviction of the other, the two are the same offense under a plea of double jeopardy, and a defendant can be placed in jeopardy for only one.
State of Louisiana v. Anthony Daye La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Cotton, 00–850, p. 5 (La.1/29/01)
State v. Davis 115 So. 3d 68 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Richard 115 So. 3d 86 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Seaton 112 So. 3d 1011 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Redfearn, 44,709 (La.App.2d Cir.9/23/09), ; (La.App.
State v. Taylor 115 So. 3d 523 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Taylor 103 So. 3d 571 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
in support of their position that the presence of an additional element, i.e. serious bodily injury, needed to convict a defendant for first degree vehicular negligent injuring precludes a finding of double jeopardy.
State v. Christensen 102 So. 3d 984 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
the Louisiana Supreme Court explained that test as follows: If the evidence required to support a finding of guilt of one crime would also have supported conviction of the other, the two are the same offense under a plea of double jeopardy, and a defendant can be placed in jeopardy for only one.
State of Louisiana v. Edwin N. Rivera La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Cotton, 00-850, p. 5 (La.1/29/01)
State ex rel. G.E. 94 So. 3d 863 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Under the “same evidence” test, “[i]f the evidence required to support a finding of guilt of one crime would also have supported conviction of the other, the two are the same offense under a plea of double jeopardy, and a defendant can be placed in jeopardy for only one.”
State of Louisiana v. Letrakus Tyler AKA Trey Tyler La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Cotton, 00-850, p. 5 (La.1/29/01)
State v. Tyler 93 So. 3d 670 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Cotton, 00-850, p. 5 (La.1/29/01)