Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Krause, 405 So. 2d 832.

25 citing documents.

State v. Collins 275 So. 3d 401 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
State v. Hoerner 88 So. 3d 1128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Shirley 10 So. 3d 224 La. 2009
State v. Morrison, [ ]; State v. Goetz, [ ]; State v. Graham, [ ]
State v. Ostrom 980 So. 2d 890 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
vation about certain mixed expressions in the court’s former rulings on multiple-offense DWI: We note that prior jurisprudence from this Court has deemed predicate convictions used in multiple offender DWI prosecutions as both “essential ele *897 ments” of the offense that must be proved by the State beyond a reasonable doubt, and as essential averments that do not constitute a “material ingredient” of the crime, State v. Montgomery, 250 La.
State v. Conner 833 So. 2d 396 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
State v. Carlos , 98-1366 at p. 5, 738 So.2d at 558 -559 ().
State v. Naquin 769 So. 2d 1170 La. 2000
326 , (1967), and as essential elements of the offense, in Carlos we recognized that the constitutional validity of prior DWI guilty pleas, as opposed to proof of the fact of conviction, is a "question of law for the Court to decide...."
State v. Harris 754 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
s element is an essential element of the offense of molestation of a (whether the predicate convictions in a multiple offender DWI prosecution are considered essential elements of the offense or essential averments of the bill of information, the state bears the burden of proving the convictions at trial); (where an accused is charged as a second DWI offender, the bill of information or indictment must allege the prior conviction).
State v. Carlos 738 So. 2d 556 La. 1999
1977); and as essential averments that do not constitute a "material ingredient" of the crime, State v. Montgomery, 250 La.
State v. Lecompte 734 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
s element is an essential element of the offense of molestation of a (whether the predicate convictions in a multiple offender DWI prosecution are considered essential elements of the offense or essential averments of the bill of information, the state bears the burden of proving the convictions at trial); (where an accused is charged as a second DWI offender, the bill of information or indictment must allege the prior conviction).
State v. Franklin 693 So. 2d 219 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
State v. Rolen 662 So. 2d 446 La. 1995
State v. Mobley 592 So. 2d 1282 La. 1992
prosecution are considered essential elements of the offense, or essential averments of the bill of information, State v. Montgomery, 250 La.
State v. Mobley 568 So. 2d 1368 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Pitre 532 So. 2d 424 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Pitre 532 So. 2d 422 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Rowell 505 So. 2d 978 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Morrison, [ ] supra; State v. Goetz, [ ] supra; State v. Graham, [ ] supra; ” Therefore, according to the dictates of Tanner , the State had the burden of proving the admissibility of the
State v. Bailey 500 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Fairleigh 490 So. 2d 490 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
State v. Morrison, supra ; State v. Goetz, supra ; State v. Graham, supra
State v. Savoy 487 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
State v. Edens 465 So. 2d 954 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Franklin 461 So. 2d 640 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Dangerfield 459 So. 2d 171 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Tanner 457 So. 2d 1172 La. 1984
State v. Morrison, supra ; State v. Goetz, supra ; State v. Graham, supra
State v. Tanner 446 So. 2d 370 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
The crux of defendant’s argument rested on two Louisiana Supreme Court decisions, and State *372 v. Krause
State v. Doucet 443 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983