Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Parish, 405 So. 2d 1080.

88 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Anthony N. Green Sr. La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
State of Louisiana v. Eric Dewayne Lafleur A/K/A Eric Vezia A/K/A Derrick Lafleur A/K/A Derrick Vezia La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
inction - if any can be discerned – between ‘resistance overcome by force’ or by ‘threats of great and immediate bodily harm, accompanied by apparent power of execution’ on one hand, and resistance overcome by ‘threats of physical violence under circumstances where the victim reasonably believes that such resistance would not prevent the rape.’” (on rehearing), in which the supreme court discussed aggravated rape and forcible rape, as the offenses were then termed.2 The court stated that it was
State of Louisiana v. Tristan Romero La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
State of Louisiana v. Richard Wayne Barras La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
Defendant also notes evidence that an offender who grabs a victim while declaring his intention to have sexual intercourse can support a conviction for attempted rape
State of Louisiana v. Austin Mott Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
This court has stated the following regarding the proof necessary for aggravated rape as compared to forcible rape: The difference between aggravated rape and forcible rape is the “degree of force employed and the extent to which the victim resists.” State v. Puckett, 02-997, p. 10 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Nathaniel Climes Thibeaux AKA Nathaniel Thibeaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
5 Cir. 10/15/03), writ denied, 03-3210 (La.3/26/04), : The difference between aggravated rape and forcible rape is the “degree of force employed and the extent to which the victim resists.” State v. Puckett, 02-997, p. 10 (La.App.
State v. Thibeaux 229 So. 3d 967 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
3/26/04), : The difference between aggravated rape and forcible rape is the “degree of force employed and the extent to which the victim resists.” State v. Puckett, 02-997, p. 10 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Christopher J. Brown La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
State v. Brown 164 So. 3d 395 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Bruce 169 So. 3d 671 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Williams 149 So. 3d 462 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
In Clark, supra, at 885 , this court noted:
State of Louisiana v. Willie R. Pitts La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
3/26/04), : The difference between aggravated rape and forcible rape is the “degree of force employed and the extent to which the victim resists.” State v. Puckett, 02- 997, p. 10 (La.App.
State v. Pitts 87 So. 3d 306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
5 Cir. 10/15/03), , writ denied, 03-3210 (La.3/26/04), : The difference between aggravated rape and forcible rape is the “degree of force employed and the extent to which the victim resists.” State v. Puckett, 02-997, p. 10 (La.App.
State v. Nguyen 88 So. 3d 511 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
5 Cir. 3/15/05) , ( (La.
State v. Langston 3 So. 3d 707 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
14:10, 14:27, 14:30.1; State v. Cheatham, 38,413 (La.App.
State v. Shivers 998 So. 2d 877 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
on remand, ; State v. Cheatham, 38,413 (La.App.
STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS HECTOR LEYVA-MARTINEZ AKA HECTOR L. MARTINEZ AKA HECTOR LEYVA AKA HECTOR LAZARO LEYVA MARTINEZ La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. Price, 40,408 (La.App.
State v. Leyva-Martinez 981 So. 2d 276 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. Kennedy 963 So. 2d 521 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
on remand, State v. Cheatham, 38,413 (La.App.
State v. Whalen 963 So. 2d 531 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
appeal after remand, State v. Cheatham, 38,413 (La.App.
State v. Ware 959 So. 2d 459 La. 2007
In the present case, jurors therefore did not act irrationally by returning a verdict which gave defendant the benefit of the doubt on the issues of penetration and degree of force employed, -87 (La.1981)("[I]t was the legislative aim to divide the continuum of acts of coerced sexual intercourse into two categories, aggravated rape and forcible rape, thereby assigning to the jury the function of fixing the range of permissible punishment for convicted offenders by returning a verdict which appro
State of Louisiana v. Mervin Latigue La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
in support of his argument.
State of Louisiana v. George Commeta Jacobs La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
On cross-examination, as follows: [T]he supreme court reversed the defendant’s conviction of attempted aggravated rape and substituted the conviction of attempted forcible rape, stating: ....
State v. Ordodi 946 So. 2d 654 La. 2006
State v. Chandler 939 So. 2d 574 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
to observe in dicta that "[t]he legal definition of this form of aggravated rape is virtually identical to that of forcible rape."
State v. Hanson 938 So. 2d 1147 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Price 917 So. 2d 1201 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
DISCUSSION Sufficiency of the Evidence In this assignment of error, compares its facts to the facts of the instant case, and contends his offense involved minimal force which did not justify punishment in the greater degree as an aggravated rape.
State v. McGinnis 917 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Dixon 900 So. 2d 929 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
on rehearing; Accord, State v. Puckett, 02-997 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Wilbert Touchet, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
(on rehearing) (footnote omitted), the supreme court reversed the defendant’s conviction of attempted aggravated rape and substituted the conviction of attempted forcible rape, stating: This court has held that forcible rape is merely a lesser degree of the crime of aggravated rape, permit
State v. Touchet 897 So. 2d 900 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
(on rehearing) (footnote omitted), the supreme court reversed the defendant's conviction of attempted aggravated rape and substituted the conviction of attempted forcible rape, stating: This court has held that forcible rape is merely a lesser degree of the crime of aggravated rape, permitting a responsive v
State v. Cheatham 877 So. 2d 164 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
State v. Ford 867 So. 2d 835 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
In his brief, where the defendant charged with attempted aggravated rape was convicted of attempted forcible rape.
State v. Berniard 860 So. 2d 66 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State v. Puckett, 02-997, p. 10 (La.App.
State v. Puckett 839 So. 2d 226 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State v. Loyd 810 So. 2d 1214 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
State v. Sanders 769 So. 2d 183 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
State v. Stevens 766 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
In State v. Howard, 31,807 (La.App.2d Cir.8/18/99), , this court addressed the difference between aggravated rape and forcible rape:
State v. Brown 742 So. 2d 1051 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
(on rehearing), appeal after remand, (La.
State v. Howard 746 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
The distinction between aggravated and forcible rape has been addressed by our supreme court in State v. *54 Parish
State v. Greenwell 746 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
State v. Maxie 719 So. 2d 104 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
State v. Campbell 715 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
State v. Shipp 712 So. 2d 230 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
State v. Steward 681 So. 2d 1007 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Such proof is indispensable because specific intent to accomplish the offense is the sine qua non of the criminal offense of attempt, ...
State v. Thibodeaux 647 So. 2d 525 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
(on rehearing), affirmed after remand
State v. Martin 645 So. 2d 190 La. 1994
State v. Moore 640 So. 2d 561 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
State v. Gallien 613 So. 2d 1145 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Distinguished State v. Pansy 612 So. 2d 278 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
In support of his contention that the evidence supports only a conviction for forcible rape