Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Boyer, 406 So. 2d 143.

126 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Carlos Anthony Toby La. 2024
State of Louisiana v. David Anthony Burns La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
“[S]pecific intent is a state of mind, and need not be proven as a fact, but may be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the transaction and the actions of the defendant.”
State of Louisiana v. Charles P. Mayeux, Jr. AKA Charles P. Mayeux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
“[S]pecific intent is a state of mind, and need not be proven as a fact, but may be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the transaction and the actions of the defendant.”
State v. Mayeux 265 So. 3d 1096 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
State v. Boyer , , 150 (La.1981).
In re State in Interest of J.S. 268 So. 3d 311 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State of Louisiana v. Major Cartrell Jones La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
14:10(1) (“Specific criminal intent is that state of mind which exists when the circumstances indicate that the offender actively desired the prescribed criminal consequences to follow his act or failure to act[.]” (wherein the supreme court concluded that the defendant’s shooting of the victim in the head at close range permitted the inference that “he actively desired her death to follow his act.”).
State v. Jones 258 So. 3d 890 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
14:10(1) ("Specific criminal intent is that state of mind which exists when the circumstances indicate that the offender actively desired the prescribed criminal consequences to follow his act or failure to act[.]" See State v. Boyer , , 150 (La.1981) (wherein the supreme court concluded that the defendant's shooting of the victim in the head at close range permitted the inference that "he actively desired her death to follow his act.").
State v. Vail 236 So. 3d 644 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Boyer , , 150 (La.1981).
State of Louisiana v. William Felix Vail La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
“[S]pecific intent is a state of mind, and need not be proven as a fact, but may be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the transaction and the actions of the defendant.”
State v. Christopher 209 So. 3d 255 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
Specific intent may be inferred when a wound is inflicted at close range, such as shooting someone in the head, (La.
State of Louisiana v. Tony Garnell Pennywell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State v. Maxey, supra [ (La.App.
State v. Pennywell 139 So. 3d 587 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Maxey, supra [ (La.App.
State v. Carmouche 117 So. 3d 136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Moreover, specific intent may be inferred when a or when a cert.
State of Louisiana v. Jamal James Carmouche La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Moreover, specific intent may be inferred when a or when a cert.
State v. Smith 90 So. 3d 1114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Carter 84 So. 3d 499 La. 2012
State v. Brown 63 So. 3d 270 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
5 Cir. 1/27/04), , writ denied, 04-598 (La.7/2/04), ( cert.
State in the Interest of S.C. J. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State Ex Rel. Scj 28 So. 3d 1206 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State ex rel. S.C.J. 28 So. 3d 1206 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Harrison 16 So. 3d 447 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. O'NEAL 7 So. 3d 182 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
7 *189 the Louisiana Supreme Court held that results of a neutron activation test, used to determine whether a person has recently fired a hand weapon, were not inadmissible hearsay since the test results did not assert anything by themselves and were meaningless without interpretation by the expert who was availa
State v. Ordodi 916 So. 2d 439 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State of Louisiana v. Leslie Otto Ordodi La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State of Louisiana v. David Lee Leger La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Leger 907 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Robinson 874 So. 2d 66 La. 2004
State v. Hickerson 838 So. 2d 21 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
State v. Williams 831 So. 2d 835 La. 2002
State v. Beavers 803 So. 2d 333 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
2d Cir.), writ denied, (La.App.
State v. Johnson 796 So. 2d 201 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
State v. Guss 775 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
State v. Freeman 770 So. 2d 482 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
State v. Coleman 756 So. 2d 1218 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
State v. Sanders 742 So. 2d 1009 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
and many other cases with similar holdings.
State v. Smith 737 So. 2d 862 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
State v. Hampton 687 So. 2d 505 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
State v. Smith 681 So. 2d 980 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
State v. Girod 653 So. 2d 664 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
State v. Harvey 649 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
The Louisiana Supreme Court has held in regards to a reenactment that "`[t]he probative value of such an experiment or reconstructed evidence depends in large measure upon the extent to which the reconstructed scene was identical to or similar to that which existed at the time the incident happened.'"
State v. Slang 646 So. 2d 1037 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
Tatum, 506 So.2d at 584 .
State v. Buchanan 649 So. 2d 586 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
State v. Leroux 641 So. 2d 656 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
State v. Mayeux 639 So. 2d 828 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
State v. Harris 627 So. 2d 788 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
State v. Turner 626 So. 2d 890 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
State v. Holliday 623 So. 2d 127 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
State v. Corley 617 So. 2d 1292 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
State v. Stone 615 So. 2d 38 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
State v. Robinson 610 So. 2d 1041 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992